|
On December 11 2010 10:39 Pulimuli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 09:43 HarmoniCa wrote:
Who do you see doing all ins?
Terrans so ask why and foucs on that race mechanis maybe?
Really it all comes down to the mule bec of the extra money it gives you so fast. You can afford loosing your scvs in the all in and still have more minerals then your opponent in worst case. Why not use this as terran? A good player always looking for a advatange.
Its a mechanic problem really the problem is mule gives that extra mineral boost so early if it was later in game like at150energy it would make no sense to all in.
Blizz shud try to balance out the timing of when the ''mineral boost'' kicks in for each race. Dealy the mule i would say to get rid of all ins.
User was warned for this post delay the mule so terrans get raped harder by protoss all-in? wow seriously gtfo and no, its not only terrans who do all-ins, i rarely ever do it and most players ive met who does 1base all-in'ish styles are protoss
Whoa whoa whoa, let's be clear here, 1-base play does not mean all in. By "all in," we mean to be talking about rushing with an early group of units while taking a ton of workers to absorb the hits. This has been brought to light mostly by Rain's excellent performance in the GSL by utilizing this tactic. I have seen no Protoss or Zerg all-ins in GSL3 so far.
|
I think that there are some very saddening values behind this thread. I do not care whether an "all in" is too strong or whether it is defensible with proper scouting or whatever else. I am more concerned with the idea of "Blizzard owes us" and "what Starcraft should be like."
Blizzard owes $60 worth of video game entertainment to everyone who purchased a copy of Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty. And this includes the people in the Bronze League and Silver and Gold. This includes people who barely play online and people who do not pay attention to tournaments or pros or the GSL. This game should be fun to watch, but more importantly it should be fun to play. Playing a 40 minute "macro" game is the epitome of Starcraft for some, and exhausting for others.
Perhaps I want to play a quick game because that is all I am able to do. Perhaps I want to play for fun and not have to learn a bunch of builds and watch replays to learn to do things properly. Perhaps I do not even want to be competitive. So perhaps if I see that my opponent has made a mistake or is playing for a later game then I can try to get units out quickly and go take an early win. I do not want to have to exercise map control because Blizzard made defense so much stronger than offence, I may want to march right into his base and win because he took an expansion instead of making units.
Blizzard owes the Bronze level players just as much as they owe the Diamonds, and more than people who watch the GSL. Starcraft should feature a plethora of viable strategies, not just ones that make it fun to watch. Most of all, Starcraft should be fun. Because it is a game.
|
On December 11 2010 10:41 lowercase wrote:
All-ins are kind of fashionable, but people need to learn how to deal with them. Sentry first instead of stalker is a good way to get some extra safety in the early game as Protoss. I still don't understand how 14 hatch FE is supposed to be the best way to stop an early all-in for Zerg, though. Little zerglings are obsessed with fast-expanding, methinks.
Hatch first is so you don't get your hatchery blocked, which basically delays your expansion until you're upto 20+ food, not to mention you'll get later creep at your expo. Pool first is just terrible because it puts you behind economically without really giving you the power to cause damage. Best pool first build is probably 7 pool ling all-in =D (sorry, I'm just biased towards Hatch first)
But I do agree that sentry first would most likely be a lot safer, doesn't 3 gate expo use primarily zealot/sentry to save up money for the nexus while setting out for an attack?
But I must agree with what most people are saying, blizzard should really try harder when it comes to testing out new maps: they have a PTR so why not? Maybe set up some kind of MOTW selection that shifts often, making it so that more maps can be tested in normal ladder play (also motivating people to play these maps in custom games for practice), kind of like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, we'll eventually have overall better maps. I'm pretty sure that is what most of the community would agree on trying at the moment and I for one would love blizzard if they were to do something like that.
|
I would like SC2 to become more like an e-sports, and I think it'll help Blizzard's sales if SC2 were to be more televised like any other sport. So yes, Blizzard owes us as much as it owes itself.
|
On December 11 2010 10:43 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 10:39 Pulimuli wrote:On December 11 2010 09:43 HarmoniCa wrote:
Who do you see doing all ins?
Terrans so ask why and foucs on that race mechanis maybe?
Really it all comes down to the mule bec of the extra money it gives you so fast. You can afford loosing your scvs in the all in and still have more minerals then your opponent in worst case. Why not use this as terran? A good player always looking for a advatange.
Its a mechanic problem really the problem is mule gives that extra mineral boost so early if it was later in game like at150energy it would make no sense to all in.
Blizz shud try to balance out the timing of when the ''mineral boost'' kicks in for each race. Dealy the mule i would say to get rid of all ins.
User was warned for this post delay the mule so terrans get raped harder by protoss all-in? wow seriously gtfo and no, its not only terrans who do all-ins, i rarely ever do it and most players ive met who does 1base all-in'ish styles are protoss Whoa whoa whoa, let's be clear here, 1-base play does not mean all in. By "all in," we mean to be talking about rushing with an early group of units while taking a ton of workers to absorb the hits. This has been brought to light mostly by Rain's excellent performance in the GSL by utilizing this tactic. I have seen no Protoss or Zerg all-ins in GSL3 so far.
dont get me wrong, im not saying 1base play is all-in or cheese, early agression/drops from 1 base into an expansion is fine. Going 4gate and blindly throwing every unit you have into someone's defensive line praying to god that he doesnt know whats going on, is pretty all-in.
i often harass/do some aggression from 1base and expand behind it, only time i stay on 1 base is when i scout an all-in strat from my opponent and i know i have to make units off all my minerals
|
On December 11 2010 10:43 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 10:39 Pulimuli wrote:On December 11 2010 09:43 HarmoniCa wrote:
Who do you see doing all ins?
Terrans so ask why and foucs on that race mechanis maybe?
Really it all comes down to the mule bec of the extra money it gives you so fast. You can afford loosing your scvs in the all in and still have more minerals then your opponent in worst case. Why not use this as terran? A good player always looking for a advatange.
Its a mechanic problem really the problem is mule gives that extra mineral boost so early if it was later in game like at150energy it would make no sense to all in.
Blizz shud try to balance out the timing of when the ''mineral boost'' kicks in for each race. Dealy the mule i would say to get rid of all ins.
User was warned for this post delay the mule so terrans get raped harder by protoss all-in? wow seriously gtfo and no, its not only terrans who do all-ins, i rarely ever do it and most players ive met who does 1base all-in'ish styles are protoss Whoa whoa whoa, let's be clear here, 1-base play does not mean all in. By "all in," we mean to be talking about rushing with an early group of units while taking a ton of workers to absorb the hits. This has been brought to light mostly by Rain's excellent performance in the GSL by utilizing this tactic. I have seen no Protoss or Zerg all-ins in GSL3 so far.
One-base = all-in.
An all-in is a strategy where if you do not do enough damage, you lose. Just like one-basing. Where if you do not do enough damage, you will lose.
|
big maps no longer have the big macro advantage as many people think anymore. with the ease of warp in or reactors and creep, the defenders advantage has been whittled down. especially with protoss, large amounts of units don't have to trek across the map.
|
On December 11 2010 10:43 lowercase wrote:
I have seen no Protoss or Zerg all-ins in GSL3 so far.
FruitDealer vs HongUn games 3 and 4? (Among many others)
|
On December 11 2010 10:41 lowercase wrote:
All-ins are kind of fashionable, but people need to learn how to deal with them. Sentry first instead of stalker is a good way to get some extra safety in the early game as Protoss. I still don't understand how 14 hatch FE is supposed to be the best way to stop an early all-in for Zerg, though. Little zerglings are obsessed with fast-expanding, methinks.
I'm a protoss player, but from what I understand:
-Zerg cannot match production from 1 base Protoss or 1 base Terran from 1 hatchery. There just isnt enough larva. They would have to make a macro hatch in their main instead of their natural. And that is all sorts of inefficient compared to P/T
-A hatch any later than 16 wont give you the time for creep spread and larva you need to push back heavy all-in without being really behind in workers. They can bust out a ton of roaches, but they'll be at hatch, while P/T can just go straight to tech units following the push.
And as a Protoss, I know at least hatch timing is super key. I think someone 14 hatching has a lot better chance at pushing back my 4 gate pushes, since they have more creep and their spine crawlers actually finish in time. If its much later, my stalkers just kill spines as they are building.
|
I honestly am so bored at this point of Terran all-ins it makes me wanna puke every time I see someone win with em.
|
On December 11 2010 10:52 WeeKeong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 10:43 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 10:39 Pulimuli wrote:On December 11 2010 09:43 HarmoniCa wrote:
Who do you see doing all ins?
Terrans so ask why and foucs on that race mechanis maybe?
Really it all comes down to the mule bec of the extra money it gives you so fast. You can afford loosing your scvs in the all in and still have more minerals then your opponent in worst case. Why not use this as terran? A good player always looking for a advatange.
Its a mechanic problem really the problem is mule gives that extra mineral boost so early if it was later in game like at150energy it would make no sense to all in.
Blizz shud try to balance out the timing of when the ''mineral boost'' kicks in for each race. Dealy the mule i would say to get rid of all ins.
User was warned for this post delay the mule so terrans get raped harder by protoss all-in? wow seriously gtfo and no, its not only terrans who do all-ins, i rarely ever do it and most players ive met who does 1base all-in'ish styles are protoss Whoa whoa whoa, let's be clear here, 1-base play does not mean all in. By "all in," we mean to be talking about rushing with an early group of units while taking a ton of workers to absorb the hits. This has been brought to light mostly by Rain's excellent performance in the GSL by utilizing this tactic. I have seen no Protoss or Zerg all-ins in GSL3 so far. One-base = all-in. An all-in is a strategy where if you do not do enough damage, you lose. Just like one-basing. Where if you do not do enough damage, you will lose.
Some points:
1. Building units is always at the expense of building up your base. If you want to cram out a bunch of zealots/marines/lings, you're going to have fewer production facilities, fewer workers, you may not expand, or whatever. You spent your tech money on units, straight up. This is very basic.
2. If you choose to build units and attack, while your opponent has built fewer and built up his base, you stand a good chance of doing enough damage to make the investment worthwhile, if you don't beat him outright.
3. If the attack flops and your opponent comes out ahead, you are behind. You don't have an expansion / production / workers, whatever. You are more likely to lose.
This is a normal attack. It is is no way an "all in." It becomes one if you believe you have no chance of catching up and throw everything at your opponent in a second attack to "finish him off." If you did enough damage in the first attack and you are ahead, this may be a good strategy. If you are so behind you think you will never catch up again, this may be a good strategy. No matter what, throwing everything at your opponent in an "all in" remains a good strategy, to be used if necessary.
What I have an issue with is when players skip step 3 and move right to the "throw everything at him and finish him off phase."
FruitDealer vs HongUn games 3 and 4? (Among many others)
Hahaha, I never saw those games. 
I guess I have seen some other all-in stuff, like HongUnPrime's chargelot rush vs. Rain, but it was horribly executed. The only powerful all-ins I have seen have been TvZ marine/SCV rushes... And I think the real power from these comes from the fact that marines are ranged units, so they can always hit their targets and focus fire in the melee.
|
Why can't people just except the fact that this isn't Brood War? This is an entirely new game.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 11 2010 11:04 holynorth wrote:
Why can't people just except the fact that this isn't Brood War? This is an entirely new game.
People aren't asking for this to be bw. People are asking for a game with diverse, exciting gameplay. Have you been watching gsl? The games have been incredibly dull lately. We want games to not be dull. What don't you get?
|
SC2 Mechanics seems to favor attacker more then SC:BW.
I don't know if Blizzard should adjust this but we still have 2 expansion coming so, lets wait and see.
|
On December 11 2010 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:04 holynorth wrote:
Why can't people just except the fact that this isn't Brood War? This is an entirely new game. People aren't asking for this to be bw. People are asking for a game with diverse, exciting gameplay. Have you been watching gsl? The games have been incredibly dull lately. We want games to not be dull. What don't you get?
I guess I just don't agree with your opinion. I find the early pressure to be more exciting than long drawn out macro games.
|
On December 11 2010 11:09 pedduck wrote:
SC2 Mechanics seems to favor attacker more then SC:BW.
I don't know if Blizzard should adjust this but we still have 2 expansion coming so, lets wait and see.
Yeah it definitely does. Well not more than defenders, but closer to even than something like BW. Zerg are almost entirely unable to take advantage of high ground (Terran can scan or use ramp as an advantageous choke, protoss can FF or use ramp as an advantageous choke). Likewise with Terran in TvP, the risk of being FFed at the ramp exists therew too. The maps are small reducing defenders advantage, warp-in almost eliminates defenders advantage and all three races get potentially highly aggressive units fairly early (Marauder, Banshee, Void Ray, banelings, Roaches) that can bust defenses.
I dunno though, it's the sort of thing we need to see how it develops. Right now in the highest level tournaments we seem to by and large either have short micro oriented committed pressure games or long games where players spend long amounts of time unwilling to commit to much of anything in way of pushes or attacks. I think as players become more comfortable with the game they will develop more interesting strategies that involve more non-committal pressure.
|
I think that the lower leagues should have their own map pool of small simple maps, with the higher levels playing on more expansive macro maps, if it becomes an issue however, I quite like watching all-ins, because player's get known for them. I'm thinking + Show Spoiler + etc. and you get to watch them get completely owned by a player + Show Spoiler +once someone works out how to defend the rushes. That is crucial, there "is" a way to defend pretty much any all-in at the moment, so it's not a problem, unlike the reaper domination of zergs etc, which they fixed.
|
The assumption is that macro will prevail in the end. I'm glad people are finally seeing the truth. It's a new game. There are no guarantees. We might progress towards longer games. We might not.
|
Edit: Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but why was I warned for giving my thoughts on game balance? It might be off topic from what the main question was in the OP, but even he suggested that marines should have a +1 range upgrade. So seeing him suggest, I felt it was appropriate for me to comment on it. And also I see other people suggesting bigger maps but without warnings. The warning message I received seemed more like a hate mail rather than a friendly reminder about inappropriate behavior.
"TL isn't the place for you to voice how you think the game should be changed." ??
If anyone can fill me in that would be appreciated so I can avoid this in the future :D
---------------------------
This may be cliche but a simple solution for this right now is to incorporate more macro-friendly/bigger maps. Not saying every map should be big, but I think right now the map pool is lacking in macro-friendliness. May be just replace like 1 "small" map with a large one, that would be good.
Also agree with the marine thing... I really think they should be range 4 and +1. In the early game it won't really matter that much, except for that Stalkers will be able to kite marines easily. But this would help balance PvT early game -- right now terran's early game is just so strong. However you could say Protoss' late game is too strong, but that shall be a different matter xD (as for that, perhaps gateways should require a longer time before turning into warpgates. May be 20 or even 30 seconds? I think there should be a bigger trade off for being able to reproduce units quickly and anywhere with power. This will make PvT a little weaker for the P too, but with marine range 4, I think it would fit better). In the late game, marines are still so effective. However in larger numbers, the range 4 will definitely be significantly weaker compared to 5 range, considering how small their unit size is. So requiring a +1 range upgrade would be quite the perfect balance imo. It fits really well, no?
Gahh now that I'm reminded of it I wish marines would require an upgrade to get 5 range xD I'll be happy if blizzard does it. Really, I think it works out perfectly.
User was warned for this post
One-base = all-in.
An all-in is a strategy where if you do not do enough damage, you lose. Just like one-basing. Where if you do not do enough damage, you will lose.
Really, one base does not equal all-in. Anyways you've committed a logical fallacy. How does having one-base relate to whether or not the player will rush or whatever? What if he's teching? sure you could say he would need to do damage with the tech later on in the game to catch up, but then would all teching be "all-in"? No.
And here's an instance to prove what you said wrong. It's 5 minutes in the game. Your opponent FE'd. Noticing that he won't have enough production capability to defend any kind of early pressure (that does NOT cut workers), you send a few units to catch him off guard, winning the game.
Now, was that an all-in? you were still able to build workers, so by no means was your economy behind (his expo wasn't finished/wasn't able to reap the benefits of an expo yet). Neither were you forced to do damage -- you could expand, although you will probably be slightly behind. If you still think this example doesn't disprove one-base = all-in, I think you may need to recheck the term's definition.
|
Such a fucking misleading title.. if you don't have anything official from Blizzard, pliz dont name your thread that way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
