|
On December 12 2010 22:59 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
It's as if you're not even reading the posts you're replying to.
You should have just stopped there in my opinion. Because It couldn't sum this whole discussion up any better. Following any further in a discussion with him is clearly a waste of time.
Superbigfoot, every time you post you become more ignorant and defiant to the fact that everything you are talking about is wrong, and has been explained why by multiple people. Its obvious you do not play zerg, nor even have a most basic of idea how the race plays. Please stop infecting this thread with your misinformation and criticism for things you obviously know nothing about. The End.
|
To be fair, Superbigfoot is correct: pool first does allow for more options.
The trouble is, they're only good options if the terran blindly commits to the all-in and suicides his marines and scvs. If he doesn't, if he turns up, sees three spine crawlers and just goes home, he is at a tremendous economic advantage. That's not right. Win-win situations aren't right. If you turn up at your opponent's base, only to find a precisely calibrated counter to what you've been doing, you should be behind. You know, like
if you did a 7RR and ran into a bunker with two marauders in it. If a build's only possible outcomes are 'win now' or 'be a base and several workers ahead' something is awry. As it stands, pro zerg players believe there is a third option: 'encounter a perfectly executed 14 hatch, and freely choose one of several unscoutable follow-ups each demanding a completely different response.' Which is still pretty bad.
EDIT: Imagine zerg could, while freely spending all their spawned larvae on drones, force terran to scan instead of calling down mules just by sending out ten zerglings...
|
On December 13 2010 04:50 Umpteen wrote:
The trouble is, they're only good options if the terran blindly commits to the all-in and suicides his marines and scvs. If he doesn't, if he turns up, sees three spine crawlers and just goes home, he is at a tremendous economic advantage. That's not right. Win-win situations aren't right.
This discussion wasn't really about what gives you more options. It was about which one was best, and so far its been hatch first. Options are irrelevant if they don't work. So suggesting that his ideas are correct is kind of misleading in the context of this discussion.
But mainly what I quoted you on above. You seem to understand the jist of the situation here, so im just confused as to why you would, in any way, promote that idea in the face of this problem. I mean dont get me wrong, I think you understand it and in the context of your post yes it does make sense. But maybe im just pessimistic in the fact I think it will lead or promote the misunderstanding of people blindly saying like
see zergs greedy > pool first more options > therefore better strategy > this all-in is fine learn2play
Which isn't the case at all.
|
Feels like the whole right to left political debate on economics to me. Im a liberal so I vote for the hands off unless an "all-in" is unstoppable by another "all-in".
|
All ins will be incredibly viable for the time until a year after the latest addon. If at that time allins are still dominant, interference is required. Untill than blizzard should just balance the game and let players develop allins and their counters.
|
I wonder if we'll see some action from Blizzard if gomtv subscriptions start to fall or viewership for most competitive play starts to disappear. I watched most of GSL 3, and I'm glad I didn't pay for any of it.
That being said, zerg still shouldn't be able to 15 pool every game and expect to get away with it, there needs to be some element of risk in the early game.
|
It would be a mistake to completely eliminate all-ins as in a way they do add a certain spice to the game from the spectator viewpoint. The all-ining player obviously takes a huge risk and it will either win or lose the game for him based on micro/reaction from the opponent. The all-in completely changes the nature of that particular game but when the audience knows what's going on they will still be on the edge of their seat to see the outcome.
If you completely eliminate all-ins it kind of creates another boringness-factor when every early game is basically the same and there's no chance for anything shocking in early game.
Of course auto-win all-ins should not exist either but I think players will eventually learn to respond better and better and be less greedy with their expansions and workers. Luckily Blizzard seems to be fairly good at not making too hasty decisions so I think we're just fine.
|
i think there is a HUGE misconception of what's ALL IN...
![[image loading]](http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6255/allinf.jpg)
that is what i got for bunkering his ramp. i brough just 2 scvs and the rallied marines, it's not all-in at all.. but that's the problem.. as someone said, there's a huge difference between applying pressure, being aggressive, playing 1 base for a while AND doing all-ins but it seems most people just think unless you turtle up and let them macro for the first 10 mins it's all in...
|
On December 12 2010 20:31 mookku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 20:20 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 20:01 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 18:41 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 18:26 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 17:53 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 15:39 my0s wrote:Going to discontinue some other lines of discussion from previous posts as I feel its a waste of my time to argue with uninformed people who feel their general gold league logic is irrefutable fact. Moving on... On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out. On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery. Mostly this. You have to realize both the mechanics of zerg as well as the economical state it puts the zerg player in when you suggest solutions. Its not the fact that it cannot be held off, although some maps it almost seems like that anyway, its the fact that it cannot be done reasonably and with any kind of reliability. When you know exactly what your opponent is doing, and you cannot respond in a way, such that with equal skill you, with a very high amount of certainty, will be ahead of your opponent. Then it really ceases to be a strategy game. No I do not proclaim to be certain that it is both unstoppable and imbalanced. But it sure as hell looking that way so far. And when two of the top, if not exactly THE top, english speaking pros sit down for an entire week and try and work it out, I'm going to take heed to their conclusions and advice. And I suggest the rest of you weekend warriors in here do the same, as they are playing this game for their living and at the highest level. And you simply, are not. It would be nice if a single person arguing against this strat being likely overpowered had any sense of the game at all. YES, it is possible to throw down all kinds of spine crawlers, cut drones, bane tech, or whatever else and hold off the initial attack. But then Terran cuts marine production at like 5 after spotting it, throws down a fast CC with bunkers and rolls you over a few minutes later with an even more powerful force. Early hatch is not greedy, its just so far the best discovered option of having a chance to deal with this, and not coming out completely eco screwed. And with the way larva works, possibly the best way of trying to deal with this in general. Maybe a good way to handle this is out there, maybe, who knows. But people need to stop sweepingly generally saying QQ zerg you just suck, and pretending they know better than the professionals at this point with zero credibility or justification thereof. Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush.Early hatch is greedy on close spawn positions. If you scout 2 rax SCV rush, yu can get 7 roaches at roughly 5 minutes, which is exactly when the Terran player pushes out with a 2 rax SCV rush. It is only possible to make 10 marines at the 5 minute marker. Seven roaches with all your drones versus 10-12 marines/scvs should be a no brainier, unless you're horrible at micro on your own creep... This issues all comes down to one thing, Zerg players feeling they are entitled to a free win when they're not even bothering to try out new builds to counter certain strategies. I just have to point out there is NO transition out of 7 roach rush and that is indeed an all-in. This differs greatly from 2 rax play since if the terran scouts 1base roach play he can just opt to wall in and bunker and continue playing standard and transition normally. (Well he might have to cut 1 scv at some point, no biggie compared to the sacrifices zerg had to make to pull the all-in off) So it boils down to who is the better scouter? Which means it has nothing to do with marine/SCV build being overpowered, unstoppable, and the ultimate win scenario. And that Zerg players such as yourself feel entitled to have the ultimate, overpowered, unstoppable, greedy, economically, transition friendly build of all time... On December 12 2010 18:37 DoubleReed wrote:Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush. Uhm. Wouldn't the terran just see the 1basing, roach-making zerg? And then opt to not early attack him. I'm pretty sure terran gets a massive scouting advantage. Terran is not forced to attack if he makes some marines off of 2rax. If zerg does the 7RR, he will be extremely behind if his roaches don't do anything. All-in vs All-in is about as unstable as it gets. Try making 2 lings to kill the scout to end up with 6 roaches instead of 7. You'll still have the advantage. Point is, pooling first opens more options for Zerg players to deal with marine/SCV rushes then going hatchery first. You don't have to go 7RR. You could make 3 spine crawlers instead. However, you for some reason, feel that the game must be an automatic Zerg win for some reason. 2rax is not an all-in by any means before you pull the scvs - which you really should not do if you are not certain there is a really greedy build on the zerg, and the build gives really great early aggression with no sacrifices when you don't pull the scv's. 7roach rush is an all-in with no transition at all. So it does not boil down to "who is the best scouter" - zerg can scout 2rax and decide to go 7RR and then terran sees no expansion and does not attack -> autolose for zerg.. and it is trivial to get that much information to both players. 7RR just is not an answer if the 2raxing terran has any brains at all. And if you claim you can do a 7RR and NOT build the roaches but opt to go for spine crawlers instead, that is just a horrible idea since you will get like half of the economy of the terran going in the midgame. Test it if you don't believe me. If wanting an equal economy as your opponent early-midgame is greedy and wanting an autowin, I plead quilty indeed. No.... I said putting down a spawn pool at close positions opens up more options to deal with marine SCV rush then putting down a hatch first.Option 1: 7RR Option 2: Build 3 spine crawlers and make some lings Option 3: Making banelings....If you can afford 7RR, you can surly afford Banelings Why is it so complicated for Zerg players to understand that there are viable counters to marine/SCV rushes? It's really just common sense that you have more options if you drop a pool first and scout accordingly at close positions. Well.. for a slightly delayed 2rax attack you need extra larva to defend efficiently, this can be done either by cutting a lot of drones and lagging in economy (which kills you later obviously) or making another hatch, which could be made in the main base, but is not really sensible since you need to make a 3rd hatchery after you fend off the initial pressure IF the terran still decides to do it. I've experimented with a speedling opener, (14gas14pool21hatch) which can fend off the early pressure, but I've constantly lagged behind in economy and died a bit later to a marine/marauder stim timing when the opponent has significantly larger army due to the better economy he gets. Best winning percentage seems to be with 14hatch16pool21gas for me with 1-2 spine crawlers at natural against 2rax pressure. You should really try to play against this type of pressure as zerg before dishing out wisdom like that. :/
First off, a Terran player has to cut a few SCVs to do the 2 rax rush.
Secondly, you just said the same thing that I've been saying the entire time, that there are viable counters to the marine SCV rush but with a sense of entitlement. If your build directly counters a marine/SCV rush then why in the world do you need to be able to transition out of it when you've killed all of the Terran player's SCV's? All of his SCV's are dead, you should be in the lead.... What makes you think Blizzard should make the game an automatic win for Zerg players? What makes you think Zerg players deserve the ultimate, economical friendly, transition friendly, overpowered build of all time? All this comes back to is proper scouting. If you scout a 2 rax SCV rush then common sense would tell you to put down a pool first instead of gambling on an early hatch. How hard is it to do that?
On December 12 2010 22:59 AJMcSpiffy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 20:20 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 20:01 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 18:41 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 18:26 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 17:53 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 15:39 my0s wrote:Going to discontinue some other lines of discussion from previous posts as I feel its a waste of my time to argue with uninformed people who feel their general gold league logic is irrefutable fact. Moving on... On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out. On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery. Mostly this. You have to realize both the mechanics of zerg as well as the economical state it puts the zerg player in when you suggest solutions. Its not the fact that it cannot be held off, although some maps it almost seems like that anyway, its the fact that it cannot be done reasonably and with any kind of reliability. When you know exactly what your opponent is doing, and you cannot respond in a way, such that with equal skill you, with a very high amount of certainty, will be ahead of your opponent. Then it really ceases to be a strategy game. No I do not proclaim to be certain that it is both unstoppable and imbalanced. But it sure as hell looking that way so far. And when two of the top, if not exactly THE top, english speaking pros sit down for an entire week and try and work it out, I'm going to take heed to their conclusions and advice. And I suggest the rest of you weekend warriors in here do the same, as they are playing this game for their living and at the highest level. And you simply, are not. It would be nice if a single person arguing against this strat being likely overpowered had any sense of the game at all. YES, it is possible to throw down all kinds of spine crawlers, cut drones, bane tech, or whatever else and hold off the initial attack. But then Terran cuts marine production at like 5 after spotting it, throws down a fast CC with bunkers and rolls you over a few minutes later with an even more powerful force. Early hatch is not greedy, its just so far the best discovered option of having a chance to deal with this, and not coming out completely eco screwed. And with the way larva works, possibly the best way of trying to deal with this in general. Maybe a good way to handle this is out there, maybe, who knows. But people need to stop sweepingly generally saying QQ zerg you just suck, and pretending they know better than the professionals at this point with zero credibility or justification thereof. Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush.Early hatch is greedy on close spawn positions. If you scout 2 rax SCV rush, yu can get 7 roaches at roughly 5 minutes, which is exactly when the Terran player pushes out with a 2 rax SCV rush. It is only possible to make 10 marines at the 5 minute marker. Seven roaches with all your drones versus 10-12 marines/scvs should be a no brainier, unless you're horrible at micro on your own creep... This issues all comes down to one thing, Zerg players feeling they are entitled to a free win when they're not even bothering to try out new builds to counter certain strategies. I just have to point out there is NO transition out of 7 roach rush and that is indeed an all-in. This differs greatly from 2 rax play since if the terran scouts 1base roach play he can just opt to wall in and bunker and continue playing standard and transition normally. (Well he might have to cut 1 scv at some point, no biggie compared to the sacrifices zerg had to make to pull the all-in off) So it boils down to who is the better scouter? Which means it has nothing to do with marine/SCV build being overpowered, unstoppable, and the ultimate win scenario. And that Zerg players such as yourself feel entitled to have the ultimate, overpowered, unstoppable, greedy, economically, transition friendly build of all time... On December 12 2010 18:37 DoubleReed wrote:Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush. Uhm. Wouldn't the terran just see the 1basing, roach-making zerg? And then opt to not early attack him. I'm pretty sure terran gets a massive scouting advantage. Terran is not forced to attack if he makes some marines off of 2rax. If zerg does the 7RR, he will be extremely behind if his roaches don't do anything. All-in vs All-in is about as unstable as it gets. Try making 2 lings to kill the scout to end up with 6 roaches instead of 7. You'll still have the advantage. Point is, pooling first opens more options for Zerg players to deal with marine/SCV rushes then going hatchery first. You don't have to go 7RR. You could make 3 spine crawlers instead. However, you for some reason, feel that the game must be an automatic Zerg win for some reason. 2rax is not an all-in by any means before you pull the scvs - which you really should not do if you are not certain there is a really greedy build on the zerg, and the build gives really great early aggression with no sacrifices when you don't pull the scv's. 7roach rush is an all-in with no transition at all. So it does not boil down to "who is the best scouter" - zerg can scout 2rax and decide to go 7RR and then terran sees no expansion and does not attack -> autolose for zerg.. and it is trivial to get that much information to both players. 7RR just is not an answer if the 2raxing terran has any brains at all. And if you claim you can do a 7RR and NOT build the roaches but opt to go for spine crawlers instead, that is just a horrible idea since you will get like half of the economy of the terran going in the midgame. Test it if you don't believe me. If wanting an equal economy as your opponent early-midgame is greedy and wanting an autowin, I plead quilty indeed. No.... I said putting down a spawn pool at close positions opens up more options to deal with marine SCV rush then putting down a hatch first.Option 1: 7RR Option 2: Build 3 spine crawlers and make some lings Option 3: Making banelings....If you can afford 7RR, you can afford Banelings Option 4: Make a second hatch if your scout does not see 2 rax without a refinery. Why is it so complicated for Zerg players to understand that there are viable counters to marine/SCV rushes? It's really just common sense that you have more options if you drop a pool first and scout accordingly at close positions. It's as if you're not even reading the posts you're replying to. I explained why a hatchery is NOT an autowin, it's needed to stay on equal production with the terran once you leave the early game. The hallmark of a stable build is its ability to have a second step (as Day[9] puts it, I'm paraphrasing though). Lets look at your suggested builds: 1: 7RR - A far more easily scouted all-in to try and counter a different all-in? That is not how a game should have to go. 2: The zerg is supposed to throw away 300 minerals and 3 drones to stop an early rush, but then how would that leave any chance for a recovery into the midgame? The economy of the zerg would be so far behind the Terran if he leaves a few SCVs behind and uses his MULES. 3: 1 base slow banelings? This would have worked before Terran players learned to micro their marines. Slow banes are not worth it without speedlings to surround and contain, but again we hit the problem of trying to do too much off of one base and with too few larvae. 4: And when your scout is stopped at the ramp, are you supposed to just result to one of the other all-in options? The hatch-first build is the best chance a Zerg has to defend a 2 rax while ending up on even footing after the rush is over. The game does not just suddenly end if the zerg manages to hold off the initial push from the 2 rax, there is still a mid game that they need to be ready for. And to cripple yourself so hard just to defend the first push in the game is not the proper response. '
And...you're not reading what I'm saying. I said, Scout and build the proper counter.
Both Terran and Protoss have multiple builds to counter their opponent's build. Why should Zerg players be the only race with a single build that counters every early aggression in the game? What makes you feel so privileged over Terran and Toss? You're not the only one that paid 60$ for the game.
|
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote:
If, hypothetically, the game reaches a point where the most effective strategies are all in off of one or two base, is it blizzards place to rebalance the game to a point where it becomes effective to play a longer game?
I can see some arguments for both sides of this debate, so I'll go ahead and post them so we have a spot to kick this discussion off from.
Yes, blizzard has a responsibility to make the game enjoyable as a spectator sport and as a game.
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
- It takes much less skill to just put all your eggs in one basket in the early game and pray you win. As a result the skill ceiling is lower, requiring less real skill to reach the "top".
- As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing.
No, blizzard should keep their hands off the game and the players will work out the best way to win.
- Every time blizzard changes something they have the potential to "break" the current balance.
- These "all ins" are viable strategies. By lowering the number of potential viable strategies blizzard would make the game less entertaining to watch and play.
- A developers role is to make the game and only fix absolutely urgent things. The metagame changes frequently and if blizzard responds each time they upset the natural flow of learning that players went through with sc1.
What do you guys think? Personally I think that if the game does end up in a complete all in fest that blizzard should scale back the all ins by turning basic unit abilities into upgrades (ie. marines have 4 range with a +1 range upgrade) or by moving things around (ie. move warp gate tech to twilight council, but buff early protoss ground)
I think one thing we all have to understand is that SC2 is still a very young game. It has only been released to the public for about 5 to 6 months. There has already been a big evolution in play style. The one thing that I like the most about SC2 is that you can be successful with different play styles. Players are still discovering different attack timings, expo timings and micro techniques. However, people aren't going to stop cheesing overnight. So, instead of waiting for blizzard to nerf anything and everything related to cheese (which will never happen), players are going to have to develop ways to stop it. In turn, this is what's going to make for longer, more macro-oriented game play at all levels.
|
On December 13 2010 08:24 SuperBigFoot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 20:31 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 20:20 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 20:01 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 18:41 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 18:26 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 17:53 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 15:39 my0s wrote:Going to discontinue some other lines of discussion from previous posts as I feel its a waste of my time to argue with uninformed people who feel their general gold league logic is irrefutable fact. Moving on... On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out. On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery. Mostly this. You have to realize both the mechanics of zerg as well as the economical state it puts the zerg player in when you suggest solutions. Its not the fact that it cannot be held off, although some maps it almost seems like that anyway, its the fact that it cannot be done reasonably and with any kind of reliability. When you know exactly what your opponent is doing, and you cannot respond in a way, such that with equal skill you, with a very high amount of certainty, will be ahead of your opponent. Then it really ceases to be a strategy game. No I do not proclaim to be certain that it is both unstoppable and imbalanced. But it sure as hell looking that way so far. And when two of the top, if not exactly THE top, english speaking pros sit down for an entire week and try and work it out, I'm going to take heed to their conclusions and advice. And I suggest the rest of you weekend warriors in here do the same, as they are playing this game for their living and at the highest level. And you simply, are not. It would be nice if a single person arguing against this strat being likely overpowered had any sense of the game at all. YES, it is possible to throw down all kinds of spine crawlers, cut drones, bane tech, or whatever else and hold off the initial attack. But then Terran cuts marine production at like 5 after spotting it, throws down a fast CC with bunkers and rolls you over a few minutes later with an even more powerful force. Early hatch is not greedy, its just so far the best discovered option of having a chance to deal with this, and not coming out completely eco screwed. And with the way larva works, possibly the best way of trying to deal with this in general. Maybe a good way to handle this is out there, maybe, who knows. But people need to stop sweepingly generally saying QQ zerg you just suck, and pretending they know better than the professionals at this point with zero credibility or justification thereof. Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush.Early hatch is greedy on close spawn positions. If you scout 2 rax SCV rush, yu can get 7 roaches at roughly 5 minutes, which is exactly when the Terran player pushes out with a 2 rax SCV rush. It is only possible to make 10 marines at the 5 minute marker. Seven roaches with all your drones versus 10-12 marines/scvs should be a no brainier, unless you're horrible at micro on your own creep... This issues all comes down to one thing, Zerg players feeling they are entitled to a free win when they're not even bothering to try out new builds to counter certain strategies. I just have to point out there is NO transition out of 7 roach rush and that is indeed an all-in. This differs greatly from 2 rax play since if the terran scouts 1base roach play he can just opt to wall in and bunker and continue playing standard and transition normally. (Well he might have to cut 1 scv at some point, no biggie compared to the sacrifices zerg had to make to pull the all-in off) So it boils down to who is the better scouter? Which means it has nothing to do with marine/SCV build being overpowered, unstoppable, and the ultimate win scenario. And that Zerg players such as yourself feel entitled to have the ultimate, overpowered, unstoppable, greedy, economically, transition friendly build of all time... On December 12 2010 18:37 DoubleReed wrote:Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush. Uhm. Wouldn't the terran just see the 1basing, roach-making zerg? And then opt to not early attack him. I'm pretty sure terran gets a massive scouting advantage. Terran is not forced to attack if he makes some marines off of 2rax. If zerg does the 7RR, he will be extremely behind if his roaches don't do anything. All-in vs All-in is about as unstable as it gets. Try making 2 lings to kill the scout to end up with 6 roaches instead of 7. You'll still have the advantage. Point is, pooling first opens more options for Zerg players to deal with marine/SCV rushes then going hatchery first. You don't have to go 7RR. You could make 3 spine crawlers instead. However, you for some reason, feel that the game must be an automatic Zerg win for some reason. 2rax is not an all-in by any means before you pull the scvs - which you really should not do if you are not certain there is a really greedy build on the zerg, and the build gives really great early aggression with no sacrifices when you don't pull the scv's. 7roach rush is an all-in with no transition at all. So it does not boil down to "who is the best scouter" - zerg can scout 2rax and decide to go 7RR and then terran sees no expansion and does not attack -> autolose for zerg.. and it is trivial to get that much information to both players. 7RR just is not an answer if the 2raxing terran has any brains at all. And if you claim you can do a 7RR and NOT build the roaches but opt to go for spine crawlers instead, that is just a horrible idea since you will get like half of the economy of the terran going in the midgame. Test it if you don't believe me. If wanting an equal economy as your opponent early-midgame is greedy and wanting an autowin, I plead quilty indeed. No.... I said putting down a spawn pool at close positions opens up more options to deal with marine SCV rush then putting down a hatch first.Option 1: 7RR Option 2: Build 3 spine crawlers and make some lings Option 3: Making banelings....If you can afford 7RR, you can surly afford Banelings Why is it so complicated for Zerg players to understand that there are viable counters to marine/SCV rushes? It's really just common sense that you have more options if you drop a pool first and scout accordingly at close positions. Well.. for a slightly delayed 2rax attack you need extra larva to defend efficiently, this can be done either by cutting a lot of drones and lagging in economy (which kills you later obviously) or making another hatch, which could be made in the main base, but is not really sensible since you need to make a 3rd hatchery after you fend off the initial pressure IF the terran still decides to do it. I've experimented with a speedling opener, (14gas14pool21hatch) which can fend off the early pressure, but I've constantly lagged behind in economy and died a bit later to a marine/marauder stim timing when the opponent has significantly larger army due to the better economy he gets. Best winning percentage seems to be with 14hatch16pool21gas for me with 1-2 spine crawlers at natural against 2rax pressure. You should really try to play against this type of pressure as zerg before dishing out wisdom like that. :/ First off, a Terran player has to cut a few SCVs to do the 2 rax rush. Secondly, you just said the same thing that I've been saying the entire time, that there are viable counters to the marine SCV rush but with a sense of entitlement. If your build directly counters a marine/SCV rush then why in the world do you need to be able to transition out of it when you've killed all of the Terran player's SCV's? All of his SCV's are dead, you should be in the lead.... What makes you think Blizzard should make the game an automatic win for Zerg players? What makes you think Zerg players deserve the ultimate, economical friendly, transition friendly, overpowered build of all time? All this comes back to is proper scouting. If you scout a 2 rax SCV rush then common sense would tell you to put down a pool first instead of gambling on an early hatch. How hard is it to do that? Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 22:59 AJMcSpiffy wrote:On December 12 2010 20:20 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 20:01 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 18:41 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 18:26 mookku wrote:On December 12 2010 17:53 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 15:39 my0s wrote:Going to discontinue some other lines of discussion from previous posts as I feel its a waste of my time to argue with uninformed people who feel their general gold league logic is irrefutable fact. Moving on... On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out. On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery. Mostly this. You have to realize both the mechanics of zerg as well as the economical state it puts the zerg player in when you suggest solutions. Its not the fact that it cannot be held off, although some maps it almost seems like that anyway, its the fact that it cannot be done reasonably and with any kind of reliability. When you know exactly what your opponent is doing, and you cannot respond in a way, such that with equal skill you, with a very high amount of certainty, will be ahead of your opponent. Then it really ceases to be a strategy game. No I do not proclaim to be certain that it is both unstoppable and imbalanced. But it sure as hell looking that way so far. And when two of the top, if not exactly THE top, english speaking pros sit down for an entire week and try and work it out, I'm going to take heed to their conclusions and advice. And I suggest the rest of you weekend warriors in here do the same, as they are playing this game for their living and at the highest level. And you simply, are not. It would be nice if a single person arguing against this strat being likely overpowered had any sense of the game at all. YES, it is possible to throw down all kinds of spine crawlers, cut drones, bane tech, or whatever else and hold off the initial attack. But then Terran cuts marine production at like 5 after spotting it, throws down a fast CC with bunkers and rolls you over a few minutes later with an even more powerful force. Early hatch is not greedy, its just so far the best discovered option of having a chance to deal with this, and not coming out completely eco screwed. And with the way larva works, possibly the best way of trying to deal with this in general. Maybe a good way to handle this is out there, maybe, who knows. But people need to stop sweepingly generally saying QQ zerg you just suck, and pretending they know better than the professionals at this point with zero credibility or justification thereof. Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush.Early hatch is greedy on close spawn positions. If you scout 2 rax SCV rush, yu can get 7 roaches at roughly 5 minutes, which is exactly when the Terran player pushes out with a 2 rax SCV rush. It is only possible to make 10 marines at the 5 minute marker. Seven roaches with all your drones versus 10-12 marines/scvs should be a no brainier, unless you're horrible at micro on your own creep... This issues all comes down to one thing, Zerg players feeling they are entitled to a free win when they're not even bothering to try out new builds to counter certain strategies. I just have to point out there is NO transition out of 7 roach rush and that is indeed an all-in. This differs greatly from 2 rax play since if the terran scouts 1base roach play he can just opt to wall in and bunker and continue playing standard and transition normally. (Well he might have to cut 1 scv at some point, no biggie compared to the sacrifices zerg had to make to pull the all-in off) So it boils down to who is the better scouter? Which means it has nothing to do with marine/SCV build being overpowered, unstoppable, and the ultimate win scenario. And that Zerg players such as yourself feel entitled to have the ultimate, overpowered, unstoppable, greedy, economically, transition friendly build of all time... On December 12 2010 18:37 DoubleReed wrote:Ret and Idra did not try everything. In fact, there is a famous build that I just thought of now that can be used as the direct counter to 2 rax SCV rush. It's the well known 7RR. SevenRR is the direct counter to 2 rax/SCV rush. Uhm. Wouldn't the terran just see the 1basing, roach-making zerg? And then opt to not early attack him. I'm pretty sure terran gets a massive scouting advantage. Terran is not forced to attack if he makes some marines off of 2rax. If zerg does the 7RR, he will be extremely behind if his roaches don't do anything. All-in vs All-in is about as unstable as it gets. Try making 2 lings to kill the scout to end up with 6 roaches instead of 7. You'll still have the advantage. Point is, pooling first opens more options for Zerg players to deal with marine/SCV rushes then going hatchery first. You don't have to go 7RR. You could make 3 spine crawlers instead. However, you for some reason, feel that the game must be an automatic Zerg win for some reason. 2rax is not an all-in by any means before you pull the scvs - which you really should not do if you are not certain there is a really greedy build on the zerg, and the build gives really great early aggression with no sacrifices when you don't pull the scv's. 7roach rush is an all-in with no transition at all. So it does not boil down to "who is the best scouter" - zerg can scout 2rax and decide to go 7RR and then terran sees no expansion and does not attack -> autolose for zerg.. and it is trivial to get that much information to both players. 7RR just is not an answer if the 2raxing terran has any brains at all. And if you claim you can do a 7RR and NOT build the roaches but opt to go for spine crawlers instead, that is just a horrible idea since you will get like half of the economy of the terran going in the midgame. Test it if you don't believe me. If wanting an equal economy as your opponent early-midgame is greedy and wanting an autowin, I plead quilty indeed. No.... I said putting down a spawn pool at close positions opens up more options to deal with marine SCV rush then putting down a hatch first.Option 1: 7RR Option 2: Build 3 spine crawlers and make some lings Option 3: Making banelings....If you can afford 7RR, you can afford Banelings Option 4: Make a second hatch if your scout does not see 2 rax without a refinery. Why is it so complicated for Zerg players to understand that there are viable counters to marine/SCV rushes? It's really just common sense that you have more options if you drop a pool first and scout accordingly at close positions. It's as if you're not even reading the posts you're replying to. I explained why a hatchery is NOT an autowin, it's needed to stay on equal production with the terran once you leave the early game. The hallmark of a stable build is its ability to have a second step (as Day[9] puts it, I'm paraphrasing though). Lets look at your suggested builds: 1: 7RR - A far more easily scouted all-in to try and counter a different all-in? That is not how a game should have to go. 2: The zerg is supposed to throw away 300 minerals and 3 drones to stop an early rush, but then how would that leave any chance for a recovery into the midgame? The economy of the zerg would be so far behind the Terran if he leaves a few SCVs behind and uses his MULES. 3: 1 base slow banelings? This would have worked before Terran players learned to micro their marines. Slow banes are not worth it without speedlings to surround and contain, but again we hit the problem of trying to do too much off of one base and with too few larvae. 4: And when your scout is stopped at the ramp, are you supposed to just result to one of the other all-in options? The hatch-first build is the best chance a Zerg has to defend a 2 rax while ending up on even footing after the rush is over. The game does not just suddenly end if the zerg manages to hold off the initial push from the 2 rax, there is still a mid game that they need to be ready for. And to cripple yourself so hard just to defend the first push in the game is not the proper response. ' And...you're not reading what I'm saying. I said, Scout and build the proper counter. Both Terran and Protoss have multiple builds to counter their opponent's build. Why should Zerg players be the only race with a single build that counters every early aggression in the game? What makes you feel so privileged over Terran and Toss? You're not the only one that paid 60$ for the game.
Sorry, I'm gonna have to go with everyone else here and say that you're the one who's not reading the posts. You say to scout and build the proper counter. Let's say I get my drone into the base and see 2 rax no gas. I build a bunch of zerglings and spine crawlers. Terran scans my base before he attacks and sees all the defenses, then he turns around and goes home to build a command center. I am now behind economically with all those lings and spine crawlers that could have been drones because I scouted and built the proper counter.
You also ask why a build should need a transition if it kills all the Terran's SCVs. I just answered this above: if the Terran sees that you prepared a way to kill all his SCVs when he brings them, then he is not going to bring them which means a longer game which demands a transition out of the build.
As for why Zergs have a "single build" that counters every early aggression? Zerg has ONE production building: the hatchery. In order to keep up production with Terran and Protoss, Zerg NEEDS another hatchery. One hatchery's larva production is not nearly enough to hold off properly executed early aggression.
|
On December 13 2010 05:08 my0s wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 04:50 Umpteen wrote:
The trouble is, they're only good options if the terran blindly commits to the all-in and suicides his marines and scvs. If he doesn't, if he turns up, sees three spine crawlers and just goes home, he is at a tremendous economic advantage. That's not right. Win-win situations aren't right.
This discussion wasn't really about what gives you more options. It was about which one was best, and so far its been hatch first. Options are irrelevant if they don't work. So suggesting that his ideas are correct is kind of misleading in the context of this discussion.
Perhaps, but I've found that when faced with someone with an utterly opposing point of view, it helps to concede as much ground as possible before trying to bring them around. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the bits of logic they can clearly see are correct, they won't be inclined to listen when you show where they've gone wrong.
Three spine crawlers or seven roaches do absolutely shut down 2-rax aggression, far more emphatically than a thin and (consequently) 'greedy looking' hatch-first defence, and those options are most readily accessible going pool first. Now, if 'the 2-rax all-in' were a build genuinely akin to the three or seven-roach-rush, something that had to win right there and then or put terran considerably behind, the existence of those options would balance the match-up nicely.
The problem - the next step Superbigfoot isn't taking - is that right up to the point the terran opens fire on you he has committed nothing, risked nothing, and sacrificed nothing. From standing on the brink of an extremely powerful all-in he can literally walk away and transition seamlessly into either a high-economy midgame or any of several varied and more powerful delayed pushes. Thus the zerg's task goes beyond simply 'shutting down' 2-rax aggression. He has to account for the terran's ability to choose to all-in without presenting an opponent who chooses not to with an even easier win a few minutes later. That's where the pool-first builds that 'crush' 2-rax aggression fall down: unless the terran is exceptionally obliging and suicides all his marines and SCVs they do as much harm to the zerg's prospects as a character reference from Gary Glitter.
|
On December 13 2010 09:08 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 05:08 my0s wrote:On December 13 2010 04:50 Umpteen wrote:
The trouble is, they're only good options if the terran blindly commits to the all-in and suicides his marines and scvs. If he doesn't, if he turns up, sees three spine crawlers and just goes home, he is at a tremendous economic advantage. That's not right. Win-win situations aren't right.
This discussion wasn't really about what gives you more options. It was about which one was best, and so far its been hatch first. Options are irrelevant if they don't work. So suggesting that his ideas are correct is kind of misleading in the context of this discussion. Perhaps, but I've found that when faced with someone with an utterly opposing point of view, it helps to concede as much ground as possible before trying to bring them around. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the bits of logic they can clearly see are correct, they won't be inclined to listen when you show where they've gone wrong. Three spine crawlers or seven roaches do absolutely shut down 2-rax aggression, far more emphatically than a thin and (consequently) 'greedy looking' hatch-first defence, and those options are most readily accessible going pool first. Now, if 'the 2-rax all-in' were a build genuinely akin to the three or seven-roach-rush, something that had to win right there and then or put terran considerably behind, the existence of those options would balance the match-up nicely. The problem - the next step Superbigfoot isn't taking - is that right up to the point the terran opens fire on you he has committed nothing, risked nothing, and sacrificed nothing. From standing on the brink of an extremely powerful all-in he can literally walk away and transition seamlessly into either a high-economy midgame or any of several varied and more powerful delayed pushes. Thus the zerg's task goes beyond simply 'shutting down' 2-rax aggression. He has to account for the terran's ability to choose to all-in without presenting an opponent who chooses not to with an even easier win a few minutes later. That's where the pool-first builds that 'crush' 2-rax aggression fall down: unless the terran is exceptionally obliging and suicides all his marines and SCVs they do as much harm to the zerg's prospects as a character reference from Gary Glitter.
Agreed. But you sir have far more patience than I do.
|
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote:
- As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing. This is a good point, however I think it's not the best point made evar.
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote:
- A developers role is to make the game and only fix absolutely urgent things. The metagame changes frequently and if blizzard responds each time they upset the natural flow of learning that players went through with sc1. This is also a good point and I think, a better one than the first I quoted.
What happens if Blizzard tries too hard to make the game fun to watch? They add stuff which does not adding anything to the gameplay. What happens if they try too hard to make it fun to play? I guess they would make it easier or offer more ways to come back; in short "fun to play" is often demanded by the player who don't win a lot. If you win the game and you win because you deserved it, you have teh fun.
At this time I agree we have too much games determined by a timing push. May be Blizzard can do some finetuning here, but they should approach evey balance change with utmost care.
With more experience, players may be getting proper intel from indirect scouting or just front scouting to prepare for a timed attack and can react accordingly. I hope that Blizzard monitors the development of the metagame and has the patient to wait if it eventually plays out or if they have to do some tweaks.
|
On December 11 2010 07:16 lowercase wrote:
If we want epic games, and epic generally means long, there has to be more options for defense. Epic means long and tense. To get long games, you need to have the option to easily come back after you got a hit. Would this yield in epic games?
I saw some long games in SC2 which were barely entertaining. Both players macroed up, had some small-scale fights, even some drops, then a final great battle which settles it. Now I watched 30+ minutes of little action.
To get tense games, every mistake must count unless the opponent makes a mistake of equal magnitude. This automatically results in relative short games. But if the metagame has been worked out and if the game is balanced right, even a 10 minute game (10 minutes real time, not ingame time) can be very satisfying and epic.
To compensate for a shorter match time, a tournament could use BO5 instead of BO3. Then we get 3-5 hopefully intense games with a close outcome instead of 2-3 long, dreadful macro-style games where we can watch for minutes how the zerg drones up.
|
We just need bigger/better maps. That is all there is to it imo.
|
I think Blizzard needs to change things so all-ins aren't that effective. I am sure they haven't designed their game trough all these years to watch pro games end in 5 minutes because 1 player, even if he's less skilled than his opponent can all-in early on and win. Of course they doN,t need to make all kind of rush ineffective; these are necessary to the game, but all-ins with scvs + marines (a la MarineKingPrime) need to be adressed IMO. It's not normal for someone like sSKS, who's known to be good to hold the pressure, to easily lose to all-ins from time to time.
Also, you only really know wich player is better in a 1v1 when it goes into a macro games with multiple bases to manage and a whole map to be aware of. I'm sure a lot of potentially pro players can't show what they are able of because some all-ins are nearly impossible to hold off...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
