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 blizzard should start doing normal maps or implement the rating system so the ladder map pool consists of the best custom maps and also bring back vultures and goliaths instead of crapllions and thordumbs ;D
I honestly see all-ins as a viable strategy, the only problem I see is that half the top 16 people in GSL have been doing nothing but all-ins and when they finally play good players they get demolished and the people knocked out earlier just look even worse than they actually are.
Could by fixed by making workers more vulnerable and reducing their damage. And even giving them low attack priority or making it so they clip through regular units instead of being meat shields.
I hope Blizzard is taking massive notes on how to improve their game by watching many many pro games and reading the community's and audience's reactions. Hopefully they are even watching BW progaming to improve their game, but I doubt they are doing anything I just mentioned.
I feel like Blizzard should make all the maps bigger, like the size of the 4on4 maps. If I'm thrown into a small 10 by 10 foot field to play soccer in, of course I will try to all-in because I barely have room to move around. If I'm placed in a bigger soccer field, I am more likely to try developed and procedural strategies.
So, yes, I think Blizzard should up the map sizes to clear up this issue.
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote: How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
Also, I thought this was some sort of post from Blizzard talking about plans to reduce the effectiveness of All-ins in general. How disappointing...
That's what the thread name makes it out to be....
I am probably saying this because I'm a zerg player but I would like to see changes in the game balance if every race has to do an all in, or one races all in is super strong....
If they "break" the balance of the game, they do have the PTR.
All-ins aren't really all bad. Playing a macro game is a privilege, not a right in my view (you can only play macro if you're good enough to fend off all-ins), so the only issue would be an all-in that's literally unstoppable. However, I'm pretty sure we're a long way from that kind of certainty...
EDIT: So yeah, I'd say give it time. Blizzard shouldn't roll over actual long-term balance just to appease short-term observer appeal...
But what kind of patch could they do to stop allins? First off, an all in can come at any point in the game. Wether its 1 base, 2 base or 3 base. Send all your workers to attack with ur units If its not workers, people could just do a timing attack, which SHOULD be dealt with by the opposing player, but as the game is now, people don't have the timings just yet. New strats come everyday. Perhaps the maps could help, but i think the problem is beyond that. weve seen all ins including on shakuras plateau, arguably the largest map out there.
and no... do NOT make novice maps playable on ladder LOL
Maps make the game. This was true for BW and still holds true for SC2. All-ins would be pretty entertaining to watch if we didn't expect them every game. Boxer's awesome marine-scv rush was one of the first things I saw in pro BW and I still remember it for its awesomeness. But obviously seeing that every game gets boring pretty quick.
All-ins are viable strats, however if it eventually determined that they are almost always the most effective strategies then I believe it is Blizzard's place to rebalance things.
I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
On December 11 2010 06:58 storm44 wrote: I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
Even on the bigger rush distance maps like Scrap, Xel, Blistering, and Shakuras the all ins are still incredibly strong and hardly watered down, I think it has a lot to do with the extra macro mechanics that weren't in Brood War more so then anything else.
First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
Hypothetical question gets a hypothetical answer: yes, if the game showed that only all-ins are the path to victory than it would behoove Blizzard to fix it.
I really think the heart of the issue with all-ins in SC2, is due to the "worker priority" attack settings.. That means your opponent has to micro EXTRA hard vs mass workers, not only avoiding them but attack-clicking on the opposing marines instead of just avoiding like in SC1.. That is why all-ins with SCVs are so damn strong.
Fix that, and it'll still be strong, but not ultra-strong where it becomes every single terran players strat.
On December 11 2010 06:49 LunarC wrote: I hope Blizzard is taking massive notes on how to improve their game by watching many many pro games and reading the community's and audience's reactions. Hopefully they are even watching BW progaming to improve their game, but I doubt they are doing anything I just mentioned.
I think posts like this that just drag blizzard through the mud with completely disproven claims should be moderated.
Blizzard itself has told us they watch these games, ladder, and they have chosen gamers from BW to showcase during events and such.
blizzard DEFINITELY needs to weaken the strength of all ins, all ins should have their place in starcraft. but you shouldn't have to be walking a tightrope 3 minutes into every game and shouldnt have to deal with such an array of potential all ins...
On December 11 2010 07:09 Skyze wrote: I really think the heart of the issue with all-ins in SC2, is due to the "worker priority" attack settings.. That means your opponent has to micro EXTRA hard vs mass workers, not only avoiding them but attack-clicking on the opposing marines instead of just avoiding like in SC1.. That is why all-ins with SCVs are so damn strong.
Fix that, and it'll still be strong, but not ultra-strong where it becomes every single terran players strat.
you do realize that changing the priority could make it even harder? you could have ur scvs attacking in a line blocking lings, and the lings would ignore them and try to get around, probably causing even more problems for zerg this is not a solution im sorry to say
i think the main issue with all ins is with zerg vs terran its very hard to scout it , very hard to stop it and if you over prepare for it but it never comes your very far behind the other matchups seem fine for all ins (can be stopped) i dont know what can be done to fix zerg, but hopefully blizz can come up with something
I wasn't necessarily thinking about cheese, I was thinking of complete play styles. My concern was that we weren't seeing any Protoss builds other than Colossus/Stalker, and 'Toss was getting hammered on the ladders and in competition.
This GSL though, we have seen 3 protoss in the final 8, despite having only 12 in the round of 64! And, I was thrilled to notice, no-one is relying on colossus/stalker anymore. I am just thrilled this GSL, despite the lack of many really epic series (except Clide/Leenock).
I believe Blizzard has a duty to patch the game not only for balance, but for interest. Expansions also serve this purpose. But I really think we need to look at the history of Brood War, and see how it changed over time once it was in its "final" patched form.
The "Bisu build" forge FE revolutionized PvZ, even as that match was stagnating. In SC2, we have MarineKing showcasing the power of those basic units, as well as HongUn and MC showing us how to incorporate stargates into Protoss play, without simply void-ray rushing (these builds are much more sophisticated than any gold-level play like that). Fruitdealer in GSL 1 showed us how to deal with reaper harass and cliff drops - even before reapers and medivacs got nerfed.
One thing I think Blizz could really do to "revitalize" the game is to make top-tier tech actually worthwhile. For battlecruisers, carriers, and... whatever top tier stuff zerg has they never use (most zergs do end up using all their units in the long run anyway... maybe they need more units) to be actually useful, there needs to be a real benefit to tech to it - that is, the advantage of teching to a certain mineral/gas value of high tech units must be greater than an equivalent mineral/gas value of lower tech units, or there is no point in getting them. See how terran goes mass bio, with maybe a few thors or tanks, despite zerg and protoss both having good anti-bio options (antibiotics?), e.g.: colossi, HTs, banelings.
There also needs to be better static defenses for all three races. If we want epic games, and epic generally means long, there has to be more options for defense. Narrow chokes and high-ground advantage are one, but a very slight buff to defensive structures would be nice, plus a build-time increase to deter the offensive use of them!
It would be nice if Blizzard actually large maps (iCCup Match Point) to encourage macro games before deciding if it is really a race balance or map balance. Fact is most of the maps have really close rush distances compared to some of the iCCup BW remakes.
For instance, what if you simply couldn't spawn close position on LT/Metal? That would be a strict improvement to the maps in terms of all-ins, I think.
There's nothing wrong with some maps being "close" and some maps being "far" to promote a diverse set of play styles, but how close is "close" and how far is "far?"
I believe that some of the maps are simply too close for comfort, and that trying to balance units/macro for these situations will just hurt the game down the road as we play on larger maps.
The thing defining the game right now is the maps more than the units, once we get better designed maps that invite you to expand (opposed to having gold minerals, rocks, debris and stuff in the way, having bases hard to defend etc)
Bad maps encourage all-ins because that player does not want to play a drawn-out game with a terrain disadvantage. But some advantages of all-ins(risky all or nothings that depends on not being scouted) are not related to maps at all. Some of the advantages is that they allow you to defeat an opponent who is more skilled at macro, discourages your opponent to expand aggressively in subsequent games without proper scouting, and overall allow you to control the flow of the series.
A great example is in one of the bacchus osl (forget which one) where the finals was Julyzerg vs Best. Julyzerg 6 pooled the first game in order to shake his opponent's prejudices against Julyzerg. It keeps your opponent guessing and that is a very nice psychological advantage to have in any competition.
edit: All-ins would never become the most effective strategy in such an macro-oriented game because it is much easier to defend than to attack. Because the 'all-in' attack solely depends on not being scouted and that scouting will definitely become more of a focus in SC2 once people figure out how to properly micro units, it will not dominate the future strategies.
On December 11 2010 06:44 razy wrote: i think blizzard should start doing normal maps or implement the rating system so the ladder map pool consists of the best custom maps and also bring back vultures and goliaths instead of crapllions and thordumbs ;D
Hellions are awesome, the only thing thats better with vultures are the spidermines, and yes i miss them but Hellions are a fine replacement. i wish we had Goliaths though
and yes the number of 1base all-in at this point is ridiculous. FE should be safer and more rewarding
Some people are getting too greedy with their expansions, and if some players do get their expansions up and running under 10 minutes there's no way they're going to be stopped.
I think players are going to have to fine tune their builds a bit more, and have better sense of when a player is preparing to go all- in.
Personnaly I'm not at all a fan of all-ins unless foxer's the one who's doing them.
It makes the game kind of boring to make one big push and pray that it works. I can understand making a big push, but i rarely all-in, the main problem for me is just that if it doesn't work, you're screwed.
All-ins in this game are really extreme. I really hope that things shape up more towards the way broodwar was played. Hopefully the expansions will fix this. I feel that all ins should not be able to win every game but only win against an opponent who goes for an extremely extremely greedy build.
Are you serious? If all-ins are the most effective strategies of course it's their job to fix it. They didn't intend the game to turn out that way, and players expect a balanced game that rewards thinking and strategy.
If you absolutely know that your opponent is going to do a particular all-in, you should be able to easily counter it with a counter-build imo. If you know it is coming, and there doesn't appear to be an effective way of stopping it, then I think it needs to be nerfed. I think this is the case mostly for Terran SCV all-ins, as other all-ins are powerful mostly because they catch the opponent off guard. As Idra said, I think they ought to improve the scoutability of each race. I really like the protoss observer buff in 1.2, and I think that is going in the right direction, but I would like to see something similar for Zerg, and possibly even Terran.
I wasn't necessarily thinking about cheese, I was thinking of complete play styles. My concern was that we weren't seeing any Protoss builds other than Colossus/Stalker, and 'Toss was getting hammered on the ladders and in competition.
This GSL though, we have seen 3 protoss in the final 8, despite having only 12 in the round of 64! And, I was thrilled to notice, no-one is relying on colossus/stalker anymore. I am just thrilled this GSL, despite the lack of many really epic series (except Clide/Leenock).
I believe Blizzard has a duty to patch the game not only for balance, but for interest. Expansions also serve this purpose. But I really think we need to look at the history of Brood War, and see how it changed over time once it was in its "final" patched form.
The "Bisu build" forge FE revolutionized PvZ, even as that match was stagnating. In SC2, we have MarineKing showcasing the power of those basic units, as well as HongUn and MC showing us how to incorporate stargates into Protoss play, without simply void-ray rushing (these builds are much more sophisticated than any gold-level play like that). Fruitdealer in GSL 1 showed us how to deal with reaper harass and cliff drops - even before reapers and medivacs got nerfed.
One thing I think Blizz could really do to "revitalize" the game is to make top-tier tech actually worthwhile. For battlecruisers, carriers, and... whatever top tier stuff zerg has they never use (most zergs do end up using all their units in the long run anyway... maybe they need more units) to be actually useful, there needs to be a real benefit to tech to it - that is, the advantage of teching to a certain mineral/gas value of high tech units must be greater than an equivalent mineral/gas value of lower tech units, or there is no point in getting them. See how terran goes mass bio, with maybe a few thors or tanks, despite zerg and protoss both having good anti-bio options (antibiotics?), e.g.: colossi, HTs, banelings.
There also needs to be better static defenses for all three races. If we want epic games, and epic generally means long, there has to be more options for defense. Narrow chokes and high-ground advantage are one, but a very slight buff to defensive structures would be nice, plus a build-time increase to deter the offensive use of them!
Anyway, I digress,
Just quoting to state that i agree with everything you said sir!
Blizzard will do whatever they need to do to make this game a epic legend like BW was, because thats means LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money for them, so you can bet they will keep working to make the game as entretained (or whatever is typer, sry for my crappy english) possible...
BUT!!, by the other hand, we cannot just expect to sit while someone else does all the works for us... The development of strategies, ideas, excecutions, etc is also very very important, and is crucial for us to get more and more cool epic games. Renember fruidealer on GSL1... When zerg was the laugh race that nobody hope to win anything at all...
Yes we can blame blizzard for the all ins, but we first must blame the players... Both the one who made the attack, and the one who doesnt seem to know how to defend
If the game ever reaches a point where everyone is just abusing all-in strategies and all games are 10 minutes long, then Blizzard has to step in and address it, whether through indirect nerfs to all-in strats, or map changes (my preference), or whatever.
Not because repeated all-ins are not fun to watch, not because they're one-dimensional and strategically shallow, not because they're bad for esports, but because if it ever gets to that point, then there is something wrong on a fundamental balance level with the game and as its creator, Blizzard has an obligation to fix it.
It would be the same thing if every Z 6pooled, or every P cannon rushed, or whatever. If things ever get to a point where everyone is using the same strategy to win, then clearly something is wrong with the game. Either that strategy is too strong, or other strategies are too weak.
I personally believe SCV all-ins are too strong compared to the all-ins of other races because T can freely trade workers and come out ahead due to MULEs, and because marines and SCVs synergize better than any combination of other races' units + workers.
Well to be fair i think its a joke how UNREAL hard it is to hold off when some motherfucker is bringing all but 3 scv and using mule abuse. I am all for blizzard leaving this game for a long peroid of time if you thinkabout it logically some would argue that starcraft 1 isn't balanced and that it was done due to the maps... Even now we are having a evolution in the pvz in starcraft 1 10+ years after it was released.. But i do think its a bit bullshit how i can get roflstomped by a lower player because i haven't played 20000 games against 2rax and if you miss a bunker game over.
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote: How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
This is a good way to put it.
Blizzard would want all-ins to be possible, but risky. I'm sure they would want more macro-oriented (or as macro-oriented as you can get with sc2...) play to be viable and probably the norm, however.
All-ins are for noobs, and there is no satisfaction in winning with one. Oh you hid your 3 warpgates on the other side of the map? Yeah, you're really clever! Unfortunately this appears to be the only reason why we aren't seeing them used every game. Players having self respect.
I think making ovie speed a T1 research, making spawn larva/mule/chrono boost require a T1.5 research, and doing SOMETHING with the fact that spine crawlers take forever to build/root would go a long way to improving early game mechanics.
Also, I think it is pretty stupid that there is virtually no situation wherein which gateway builds (no warpgate research) are universally unviable past 5 minutes.
On December 11 2010 07:41 Toxiferous wrote: The game will balance out itself, seeing solid play like Jinros TvZ in GSL was just a taste of whats to come, I think
Standardized play will eventually work out the kinks, or at the very least its too soon to tell if it wont
Jinro proceeded to lose in several fast games to one and two base pushes by mc. Most of those pushes weren't even all in and jinro had an almost impossible time defending them.
the idea of "blizzard's responsibilities" kind of makes me laugh, but responsiblities or not, its in blizzard's interests to make this game as entertaining to watch as possible
I feel like 100% accuracy vs units on cliffs really take the defenders advantage away. Maybe if they reverted it back o the way it was in bw we'd see less agression.
I think the root of the problem simply cannot be solved until HOTS or later simply because the fundamentals of protoss are more bland than terran, and zerg is just absurdly one-dimensional. SC2 is WAY more predictable than it should be, especially at T1. More units/abilities and general race capabilities need to be implemented, IMO.
All-ins are for noobs, and there is no satisfaction in winning with one. Oh you hid your 3 warpgates on the other side of the map? Yeah, you're really clever! Unfortunately this appears to be the only reason why we aren't seeing them used every game. Players having self respect.
What I think is that all-ins and cheese should incur significant economic penalties to the player that fails to win or do enough damage with them.
I think the way the macro mechanics are designed is mostly to blame, as it allow players to be sloppy but still catch up on worker production (Or just drop a MULE or two to compensate for the lack of SCV).
Another problem is that certain rushes or all-ins ends the game rather than simply doing damage. This potential should be kept to a minimum.
I don't mind all ins and do think they have a place in SC2, but in SC2's current state, I do not think there is enough risk involved with certain all ins.
the risk of an all in should be that if a person scouts it in time or just blindly expects it, the person should be able to defend and crush the all in. with an all in like the 2 rax marine/SCV all in that simply isn't the case right now and its outcome is more of a coinflip situation.
On December 11 2010 07:56 Bond(i2) wrote: I feel like 100% accuracy vs units on cliffs really take the defenders advantage away. Maybe if they reverted it back o the way it was in bw we'd see less agression.
User was warned for this post
i agree. i still find that awkward.
lowering accuracy for shooting up a cliff and hitting units hiding behind doodad should be implemented.
one question, how are people defining all-in? i'm assuming this is becoming a popular topic in regards to mc vs jinro. from what i've seen, i did not see a game with an all-in strategy. rain vs hongun yes.
In my opinion All-In Strategies are not going to warrant any rebalancing for the game. All In's are frustrating, but if you react appropriately you can hold it off. There's no All In that is undefeatable. All In's are a legitimate strategy. With a little bit of scouting and experience you will overcome the dreaded All-In.
On December 11 2010 07:32 toadstool wrote: Some people are getting too greedy with their expansions, and if some players do get their expansions up and running under 10 minutes there's no way they're going to be stopped.
I think players are going to have to fine tune their builds a bit more, and have better sense of when a player is preparing to go all- in.
in SC:BW it was not uncommon to have your natural taken within 5minutes of the start and your 3rd around 10-11 minutes into the game
Just because Blizzard has been hesitant to apply major balance changes in the past few months, doesn't mean that they can't. I think the general consensus at Blizzard is that everything is "ok" or at least well enough to not warrant immediate hot-fixes.
The all-in Foxer style has been only active since the last two weeks of GSL2, and that's what, 4 weeks ago now?
It's unfortunate that GSL3 has seen little change when it comes to this strategy, and to a certain degree it IS worrisome, but give it at least another GSL to see what becomes of it, in my opinion.
yes, defending is crucial. i come from warcraft three and what does every human player do after securing an expansion? begins to mass towers. if you watch gsl the zergs that fight off cheese the best are generally the ones with better spine crawler placement. i have a strong feeling a lot of the people complaining about all ins are zergs that are going for overly economic game plans.
i'm just gonna say it overtly, i think most of the people complaining the loudest about all ins are replay copying scrubs who watch reps of hatch first pros stomping people that are paralyzed with fear by someone with slightly stronger micro and miss timing windows and get rolled over. people see that and think wow thats how i win and they get outraged when it gets countered. furthermore its become so commonplace now that people are blind building against it and racking up huge free wins cuz folks, u just plain aren't doin it right. and yes i know idra and other pros complain about it but although i know the pros are very insightful they are still human and biased and lets not forget everone has fits of petulance and sneers at their opponents and their style of play, i play lots of games, not just computer RTS, and it is a common trend.
simply put, if you're going for macro games, expect them to last an hour. not 35 minutes, a long slogging hour. but you're a superior player like you always say you are it, it should work out, right?
i will concede static defense may be a _little_ bit weak and small maps should have more easily defended naturals, but people just wanna press the easy button and drone up with 2 zerglings for 6 minutes and it doesn't work that way.
If the game were ever to reach that point, Blizzard would likely fix the issue by adjusting the map pool to include larger maps with longer rush distances.
Blizzard doesn't have any moral responsibility to "fix the game". However, Blizzard has high standards for its games (which is why the brand is so popular), as well as high hopes of establishing a robust foundation in esports. If their game degenerates that badly, rest assured it will be changed.
blizzard listened with reapers when they were too strong. list goes on, lets trust on them with this too. i personally dont think its out of hand but when it does, i'm sure blizzard will do something about it.
Hypothetically if the only viable strategy was all in, yes Blizzard should fix it. However, it is not at that point. First of all, people need to stop confusing aggressive play with all in's. All in's implies your economy is sacrificed so much for the attack that if it fails, it is unrecoverable. Yet all these rushes and early game attacks yield at an expansion at the same time and people still call them all ins.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
most intelligent post ive read so far..
by continuously changing the game your not giving enough time for players to find counters to these all-in strats.. for eg idra and ret stated that 14hatch was the best counter for scv marine all in.. but they have only tested methods for what 1 week? 1 month? im sure given time there will be other players who will think of crazy counters
Easy i would just stop playing the game. Theres very little Blizzard can do about ALL-IN if you try to balance something that has to do with an ALL IN you are going to affect the "Normal" strategies. Really its up to the players to learn to counter the all in.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
You are mostly right, but I think that many of these strategies are hated on because the risk is not nearly as big as the reward.
expanding doesn't seems like a big problem to me but probably the get 30 workers for your natural along the 30 in your main is a problem. Not really mine effectiv and if the enemy keeps on going for more army, there is a superp all in timing given. The 400 mins are not the big issue but the 1k mins that are put into workers and supply stuff are. Also mostly the expansions are up before the production buildings are there in bw there was mostly the production already complete before the expansion. Maybe people will figure out how to have a good eco to not be outmacroed and still be able to hold up all in pushs.
As it goes for my games i would like all ins against me (fund to hold em up), but since i play terran everyone stays silently in their base and get the evil aoe stuff atm + 200/200 . So i mostly have to win before that or buy a better computer but no money hehe. But since i am only platin i guess its the best way to win against terrans, since micro is non existant at that level.
Laming is just another word for skill. Grubby said something really similar to that a few years ago. He's right. Besides i prefer watching mid game micro intense all-ins as opposed to macro fests.
In this particular scenario, you can have your cake and eat it. Blizzard can keep their hands off the game balance and let the game play out on its own while still encouraging more entertaining playstyles.
How?
Maps. You can cycle maps. One season can have a bunch of all-in maps, one season can have a bunch of huge macro maps, one season can have a mix, one season can be all Blood Bath, one season can be all God's Garden.
After a while, you're gauranteed to see what kind of maps people prefer and what kind of maps the game benefits from the most. All without messing with "balance" and promoting player development while still keeping the game entertaining.
On December 11 2010 06:50 Megaman wrote: I feel like Blizzard should make all the maps bigger, like the size of the 4on4 maps. If I'm thrown into a small 10 by 10 foot field to play soccer in, of course I will try to all-in because I barely have room to move around. If I'm placed in a bigger soccer field, I am more likely to try developed and procedural strategies.
So, yes, I think Blizzard should up the map sizes to clear up this issue.
the soccer analogy is not a good one. i just finished coaching my son's U-7 (under 7) soccer team, and the fields are made intentionally extremely small, and the sides short 4v4, in order to encourage faster game play, more crowded conditions and more individual touches on the ball. the system was designed by the dutch, and is implemented in just about every single U-11 or lower league in average or above average clubs.
maybe the map design was on purpose, to encourage early attacking play, but with some of the macro mechanics, these all-ins are too powerful, and not enough pain when they don't work out (especially terran and MULEs)
It is a very very tricky balance issue. Fast attacking skirmish game? Or simcity and big armies? It looks like Blizzard chose the former, and people are taking advantage of it with the extra macro mechanics.
After 1 GSL? People are reacting way too quickly. I think that we will see things completely change when the GSL regular season comes along, not to mention naturally at the ladder level.
Maps. You can cycle maps. One season can have a bunch of all-in maps, one season can haver a bunch of huge macro maps, one season can have a mix, one season can be all Blood Bath, one season can be all God's Garden.
After a while, you're gauranteed to see what kind of maps people prefer and what kind of maps the game benefits from the most. All without messing with "balance" and promoting player development while still keeping the game entertaining.
Yeah, maps are a much easier way to tweak the game without being completely reactionary every time people decide to QQ (which is every time a game is played). Changing maps is much quicker and much more painless than changing mechanics.
I get the argument that having SCII be the most "entertaining" it can be will lead to the most popularity of the game with both players and spectators, but ultimately I don't think the game has a glaring imbalance that will make all-ins the only winning strategies. If that were the case it would come more from the lack of knowledge and experience in the players, not the game (i.e. not Blizzard's responsibility).
Hopefully as the general skill level rises and people become more familiar with the game they will find answers to the current "unbeatable" all-in strategies and people will know better than to try them anymore. I think it is fair to say it would be harder to all-in somebody in SCII if they knew the game they way Flash/Jaedong understand SC:BW.
Besides, the point of the game is to win and the name "all-in" says it all: you take the risk for the chance at the reward. If you take an example from another sport it makes more sense. In Baseball you can steal bases. This isn't SUPER OP IMBA just because he got an advantage, the runner takes the risk of being thrown out (having his all-in countered) and so the attitude is "yes, you can try and steal a base if you want but if you mess up you will negate your walk/hit". Think of all-inning in a tournament like stealing home plate... it is super risky but you can win the game with the run you score. Yeah, we would like to see the World Series won by the team with a solid bullpen and consistent hitters. That doesn’t mean stolen bases, hit batters, and bad strike calls don’t have an equal affect on who wins.
Last time I checked all-ins against a FE build were just as effective in BW as they are now. It's the risk you take and when I lose because of a decision to FE I only blame myself. I don't support cheese or all-ins for that matter but at the same time why should people who use these builds have to except that people don't want them to attack for 10 min. If you FE you have the lead already even if you make almost no workers for that expo, thats the difference between then and now. So much emphasis is placed on pumping drones or w/e for you'r expo and saturating it as fast as possible and yet the opponent is 4 gate rushing. Not smart, and not their fault; scout whats going on and then adjust to that.
Some of the cheese builds are pretty hard to hold, ill admit but if you hold an all-in Marine/SCV rush you won.
On December 11 2010 06:51 Pixel. wrote: think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post
What was this guy warned for? I think he does bring up a good point about mule nerfing. As we've seen several times in the GSL, a terran player can drop a mule and send all of his SCVs with a few marines to the opponent's base while still getting decent income.
On December 11 2010 06:52 0neder wrote: Macro Mechanics mean that you can get maxed off of two base and I think it messes up the game and would only be fixed by bigger maps...maybe.
I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit and I do believe macro mechanics have the potential to be one of the root causes of all ins being so powerful and pros like Idra thinking that they are here to stay. The current Macro mechanics allow you to get a surge of units very very quickly from almost nothing which creates pockets/timings where you can hit the enemy and win. Scaling back these mechanics might allow the game to settle down a bit while still retaining the possibility of the all ins.
I do hope bigger maps are implemented into the map pool purely so the game can have more than just the current medium to balance by. We don't know if it will change much but there is potential for other faults being seen. I just think blizzard are limiting themselves far too much by just looking at smallish to medium maps while balancing. The game should be balanced across the spectrum while allowing variety.
All that aside. A lot of what people perceive as imbalance is merely one player making a mistake or being outplayed. I'm more worried about design than actual balance.
Blizzard has previously stated that they don't want to take cheese out of the game, but they monitor closely which cheeses are too strong. Yes terran all-ins suck really really hard, but blizzard in general is pretty fair when it comes to balance.
On December 11 2010 06:51 Pixel. wrote: think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post
What was this guy warned for? I think he does bring up a good point about mule nerfing. As we've seen several times in the GSL, a terran player can drop a mule and send all of his SCVs with a few marines to the opponent's base while still getting decent income.
He posted a one liner with no reasoning whatsoever to backup his opinion. Pretty worthless post if you ask me, definitely merits a warning.
I really hope that if the game degenerated into a pure all-in fest that Blizzard would take the initiative and do something about it. I really don't think we are near enough to that to really start discussing it though, the game still has a lot of room for growth and change right now, especially with just a few small balance changes.
In my opinion the biggest problem are the maps. Most of them really do their best to keep you from expanding with rocks, debris, positioning and whatnot. Maps have an unbelievably huge impact on the game. You're way more likely to see a long macro game on Metalopolis cross positions than you are on Steppes of War obviously.
So yeah... I think it's Blizzard's responsibility to do something in that regard by rethinking their map pool and changing from showing off their cool new features(gold expos, watch towers, rocks/debris, etc.) to something that allows for longer, more macro oriented games(longer distances, no rocks, no gold expos, adding some map features that become very interesting in the late game, etc.)
On December 11 2010 06:51 Pixel. wrote: think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post
What was this guy warned for? I think he does bring up a good point about mule nerfing. As we've seen several times in the GSL, a terran player can drop a mule and send all of his SCVs with a few marines to the opponent's base while still getting decent income.
Its obvious that it doesnt contribute to the topic whatsoever. The thread is about whether should 1-2 base play become dominant, whether changes from blizzard would be substantiated. As to what changes are necessary is a topic of balance which is NOT the theme of this thread.
I think you have to give the players more time to adjust. Vanilla SC had it's own problems with unit compositions and costs (150 mineral spawning pool anyone?).
There is a lot more emphasis with timing attacks because of macro mechanics in the game and you could also make an argument for unit specialization & hard counters as well. The map pool is another deterrent. In the end, give it more time.
its impossible to make the claim that 1 base or 2 base all-in's are the be all end all of stratigy. Not every game in BW lasts 30+ minuets. sc2 is only 6 months old, and its already advanced to about 4 years into BW game play. Now, given, that's just because of the general level of the players is much higher starting out.
It will always be advantages to take an expansion. Players of equal ability, if they both 2 base, and 1 takes a 3rd, the one who takes the expo will win (given the game lasts long enough). The better people get at unit control, the easier it is to stretch that extra 400 minerals out of units to take an expansion.
All-ins are strong at the moment, maybe too strong. However no one can really tell for sure if they are "too strong" because the game is still new in terms of how developed strategies are. Blizzard needs to be very careful which they are rightfully doing as they have stated and shown us thus far.
There are some things that I think are questionable from a design perspective. Mules are very powerful because they can both mine minerals extremely fast and stack with SCVs on a mineral patch. This is however not a problem rather than more of a pro of the Terran race. What is a problem is that Terrans can all-in with SCVs early game and still retain a steady (enough) income with mules. Furthermore, when a Terran forgets to mule there is no punishment since you can drop as many mules at a time as you have energy for. I for one think mules need to be tweaked a bit so that they either have:
1) An increased duration but still only mine the same amount of minerals -and/or- 2) Get rid of the mule energy cost and replace it with a cooldown The problem with #2 is that it would require the OC to be redesigned because you no longer have to spend energy on mules which would give you extra scans and supply call-downs. The only real way to make it viable would be to get rid of the energy entirely and make all 3 abilities share a global cooldown.
I am also not fond of the relation between Gateways and Warpgates. No one ever settles for Gateways because it requires almost no investment to get Warpgates and they are vastly better. If they moved Warpgate tech to the Twilight Council I think that would be much better from a design perspective as well as making all-ins less strong but still viable.
This is only speculation however, I could very well be mistaken.
On December 11 2010 08:09 JTouche wrote: In my opinion All-In Strategies are not going to warrant any rebalancing for the game. All In's are frustrating, but if you react appropriately you can hold it off. There's no All In that is undefeatable. All In's are a legitimate strategy. With a little bit of scouting and experience you will overcome the dreaded All-In.
No offense dude but this is some Bronze-level wisdom.
i think allins on 1base are pretty weak in the zerg matchups. most of times u see an allin work is just because the other player played risky/greedy/abusive and got punished for it
as players get better and refine their solid builds to defend vs all cheese early game u will start think they should buff 1basing just wait and see
it really just comes down to mindgames caliber of players and which maps they play on. if u get metalopolis cross pos between 2 very high level players the odds of allin working is very low while if u have 2 avarage diamond players on steppes of war its pretty unlikely they wont expand...
i think blizzard should just do what they've been doing and nerf specific all-ins or buff the responses to them. they haven't always done the best job of this but this seems to be their goal (roach range buff, reaper nerfs, zealot build time nerfs, the beta queen speed nerf). they are making progress, and the game will be more enjoyable to watch and play if all-ins are viable but preventable. we've gone from players abusing one-base all-ins (see 5 rax reaper against zerg) to trying 2 base all-ins (marineking in s2). sc2 has come a long way since beta.
also i really hope GSL4 does not use a random map pool for each series. i think gomtv's choice to remove map veto in S3 led to some bad matches/series and might have hurt the community's view of the game. the veto system will help to at least let players remove the maps that make certain matchups look simply abusive to viewers (hello steppes). i have kind of lost hope in blizzard either improving its own map pool or seeking content from the community.
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.
ALL Ins are part of the game, and eventually the great players will learn how to deal. I love how blizzard changed the speed of sc2 compared to sc1. sc2 matches are supposed to have more action with typically less bases. taking a lot of bases and turning it into a macro game should be a challenge and an uphill climb. I think the problem of ALL ins being overpowered is due to the youth of sc2. there should always be the possibility to all in, it makes the game more dynamic.
that being said, the players who rely on all ins may be lame (rain vs nestea) but honestly nestea didn't deal with it properly. i'm sure he will have learned his lesson for GSL 4, and so will everyone else in time.
On December 11 2010 08:09 JTouche wrote: In my opinion All-In Strategies are not going to warrant any rebalancing for the game. All In's are frustrating, but if you react appropriately you can hold it off. There's no All In that is undefeatable. All In's are a legitimate strategy. With a little bit of scouting and experience you will overcome the dreaded All-In.
No offense dude but this is some Bronze-level wisdom.
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.
if blizzard delay the mule, they should reduce chrono boost time and decrease the # of larve being injected...
Or else terran will get outmacroed harder by zerg and cannot hold off protoss rushes
I think if the maps were larger, like other people stated, there would be less all-in builds. And I also think the game will evolve and all-ins will not be as common. Just takes time.
On December 11 2010 09:53 MrMotionPicture wrote: I think if the maps were larger, like other people stated, there would be less all-in builds. And I also think the game will evolve and all-ins will not be as common. Just takes time.
I believe Blizzard's intentions are to have a large variety of maps that would require diverse players to be the most successful. The reason they like small maps is that it promotes aggression which is more fun to watch for a spectator. This is especially true for people who don't particularly know whats going on.
A lot of people seem to be commenting without actually keeping up on the recent gsl games. Not one is saying all in strats should be completely removed. They have just become a large majority of the games played right now, and it is making the game repetitive and less enjoyable to watch.
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
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 think the easiest way to solve the all-in issue is to have better maps. That either means blizzard has to up their quality or allow the community to take over.
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 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 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 10:41 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.
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.
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 11:04 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 +
BitByBit
etc. and you get to watch them get completely owned by a player + Show Spoiler +
fruitdealer
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.
Considering GSL lately i'd say the game has already reached a point of all-in fest, the players who get far by cheese is now the majority - not the exception.
I think it's Blizzard's job to fix this, because it leads to a pretty stale gameplay.
Generally bigger maps would fix it though - but we do want all-ins to be a possibility don't we. Thing is all-ins are pretty fool proof, all-ins were kind of tricky to pull off in BW and were still pretty awesome.. Hrmm...
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
Don't state your opinion as a fact. I happen to find all-ins, and cheese especially, the best games to watch. I'll never understand why people get hard off watching macro for 45 hours before they start fighting.
I've never quite understood the logic behind liking a short, fast paced game as several posters have mentioned. I enjoyed watching some of the games in the GSL 2 finals with the early aggression but the sheer lack of diversity becomes boring very quickly.
I think players will become more adept at dealing with the high pressure early game builds but it'll take time. New, unseen strats do not come up everyday, but as sc2 is relatively new i'll give the players the benefit that new strats/builds will throw players off.
If this trend does continue though for lets say 6 months (random time frame), then i'll begin to question the gameplay. Short, 5-10 minute games where a well microed push beats the opponent feels very lacking gameplay wise. One of the most enjoyable experiences I get out of this game is simply watching a lategame terran constantly pressure the opponent all over the map. I may hate it in game when I lose, but from a spectator's viewpoint it's awesome to behold.
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
Don't state your opinion as a fact. I happen to find all-ins, and cheese especially, the best games to watch. I'll never understand why people get hard off watching macro for 45 hours before they start fighting.
Because watching that 3rax all-in for the millionth billionth time is all that awesome? Watching a terran beat down a hatch first zerg with blind 2rax is not very entertaining, especially when it's the 5th time in the same tournament..
Long macro games can also be very intense, but all-ins can definitely be interesting too. I don't think I need to explain why xD Cheese can also be very lulzy, but cool to watch. And it can make things feel so dramatic for the players.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
Yes but this GSL is perfect proof that this concept isnt Big Risk. It's more like Sure thing for Big reward. Many things play into this--map/balance/skill levels.
Nearly every game at 2600+ - including pro level is cheese.
Its not even fun to play anymore for me, it must be 1/10 games that I actually get past tier1-2, and those are games where Trushed for banshees.
imo, warp in should be delayed. currently its the first protoss tech and it allows for instant reinforcement... something that greatly improves the cheese. queens air attack should be more powerful so VR's / banshees are used more for harass and map control then winning games.
Its currently impossible for a zerg to punish a 2 starport > FE build.
On December 11 2010 08:09 JTouche wrote: In my opinion All-In Strategies are not going to warrant any rebalancing for the game. All In's are frustrating, but if you react appropriately you can hold it off. There's no All In that is undefeatable. All In's are a legitimate strategy. With a little bit of scouting and experience you will overcome the dreaded All-In.
No offense dude but this is some Bronze-level wisdom.
Explain
Well k20 its like this, If you know its coming you should <-- be able to hold it off with the amount of time and preperation you have, but DUE to the fact that the stratergy is so strong it will still beat you, and then THE worst part isn't even holding off the rush, its that afterwards the terran has a poential of like 3/4/5 difffrent choices in which you WILL not scout if the terran does his job properly (Refrence to ret saying the same thing)
he can
continue to 2 rax you make marines or.. Stop making marines and put down a CC he could just keep making marines and take his two gases and preassure with marines into banshee's he could just go hellions to combat the absurd amount of lings you HAVE to make regardless if you don't scout a gas you know hes probly going 2 rax so you have to make many many many zergling even if he decides oh i wont go 2rax ill just go 1rax cc and hide the command center.
I personally want them to keep it this way for the moment see how things play out, but im not convinced yet.
is it me, or is the title severely misleading? when i read it, i assumed that it was an official statement from blizzard and it looked like a Q/A thing at first glance. Would be appreciated if title name changed. Moreover, most all ins are only strong because of the maps // spawning postions. Furthermore, marines in sc2 are basically good against everything if/when: microed properly higher numbers = exponentially better etc However, they can be trash if one or more of these conditions stated above are not met-- this was not the case in BW, yes they were good but not as good as they are now. I AM NOT SAYING TO NERF MARINES. I am simply pointing out how strong marines are such as with allins early game where 10 marines w/ 20scvs as meat shields.
On December 11 2010 11:39 Balor wrote: Nearly every game at 2600+ - including pro level is cheese.
Its not even fun to play anymore for me, it must be 1/10 games that I actually get past tier1-2, and those are games where Trushed for banshees.
imo, warp in should be delayed. currently its the first protoss tech and it allows for instant reinforcement... something that greatly improves the cheese. queens air attack should be more powerful so VR's / banshees are used more for harass and map control then winning games.
Its currently impossible for a zerg to punish a 2 starport > FE build.
It's not just the warp-in anywhere that promotes Protoss cheese/massive pushes, it's the ability for protoss players to be safe while throwing down extra gateways over units due to FF and warp-in being front loaded production. This lets them quickly swell large numbers of gateway units immediately following Warp in completion and gives Protoss tons of potential timing attacks (6 gate, 3 gate stargate, 4 gate, 2 gate, 2 gate stalker) from warp gates.
Queens vs Banshees/VRs is fine though. You shouldn't be able to rely entirely on queens for air defense, which is exactly how it is balanced right now. You use them vs non-committal air pressure, but if the T or P is focusing heavily on air you will need an actual anti-air unit.
On December 11 2010 11:39 Balor wrote: Nearly every game at 2600+ - including pro level is cheese.
Its not even fun to play anymore for me, it must be 1/10 games that I actually get past tier1-2, and those are games where Trushed for banshees.
imo, warp in should be delayed. currently its the first protoss tech and it allows for instant reinforcement... something that greatly improves the cheese. queens air attack should be more powerful so VR's / banshees are used more for harass and map control then winning games.
Its currently impossible for a zerg to punish a 2 starport > FE build.
This is why you have to play custom games with partners. But then you do that, and you aren't as good against the cheeses. It really is quite weird / boring to play right now.
On December 11 2010 11:31 Rodiel wrote: Bigger map plz, seriously i think u can make walk all the map in 5s, no enough positional play
Agreed.
I think the main problem is most definitely the maps.
If we simply have bigger maps ( much like the bigger, custom made competitive maps in Sc1) I think what we'll see is a HUGE decline in all-in plays.
EDIT: I actually read past the first two pages, found a good post.
On December 11 2010 08:51 Mooncat wrote: In my opinion the biggest problem are the maps. Most of them really do their best to keep you from expanding with rocks, debris, positioning and whatnot. Maps have an unbelievably huge impact on the game. You're way more likely to see a long macro game on Metalopolis cross positions than you are on Steppes of War obviously.
So yeah... I think it's Blizzard's responsibility to do something in that regard by rethinking their map pool and changing from showing off their cool new features(gold expos, watch towers, rocks/debris, etc.) to something that allows for longer, more macro oriented games(longer distances, no rocks, no gold expos, adding some map features that become very interesting in the late game, etc.)
as a zerg player, i'm just frustrated as shit over how many different timing attacks protoss have. i can't ever FE vs them cause it's a pure gamble as to whether they just rally zealots and i die. if they're smart they build their buildings outa sight of the wall and then you have to pray to god that your "makes a glacier look like Usain Bolt" overlord sees ANYthing that can maybe reveal a tell. i find that i have to 1base mass roach/queen, in case any of the 5 ways they can end me are chosen. and not just a FE which means i'm then behind.
Allins or not, I seriously prefer those micro intense game instead of macro macro and wait for your opponents to blunder and slip in either macro or position. BoxeR did a lot of allins with crazy micro yet people worship him like god and being crowned the Terran Emperor so why can't the others do the same? Selective vision? I don't know.
I am fine with the status quo. If you scout an allins earlier and have better micro, I believe that you will hold it off and once you do so, you're basically way ahead your opponent.
On December 11 2010 12:09 jdreamer wrote: Allins or not, I seriously prefer those micro intense game instead of macro macro and wait for your opponents to blunder and slip in either macro or position. BoxeR did a lot of allins with crazy micro yet people worship him like god and being crowned the Terran Emperor so why can't the others do the same? Selective vision? I don't know.
I am fine with the status quo. If you scout an allins earlier and have better micro, I believe that you will hold it off and once you do so, you're basically way ahead your opponent.
I'm not a pro but that's my opinion.
People don't treat it the same because of frequency. Right now at the top it seems like there's two major styles... the player who likes to go all-in and the player who likes to defend the all-in then counter. It's much more interesting when you can have players who favor drops, those that favor pushes, those that like harass, those that prefer to defend and macro, and those that like to do crazy committal attacks. I think most people find some of the GSL players to be really brilliant or amazing, but the frequency of the short games wears thin on them.
Though I do wonder how much of it with the GSL is due to the format. Players have time to plan and find weaknesses in their opponents play, then exploit those weaknesses with all-ins or committed attacks.
I know it's getting old, but at least one glaring issue is the maps.
I usually don't say that. Like I don't think balance issues are a map problem, there are obvious balance issues that exist on every map. Nor do I want every map to be the same damn thing as lost temple w/o cliffs.
But i don't really think the maps are blizzard's fault. I don't know why tournaments aren't using redone ICCup maps by this point, if not making their own maps. Blizzard even recommended (and planned) that they would make their own maps.
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote: How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
Couldn't have said it better myself. You never saw these worker conga line all-ins in BW (rarely). At this rate the game needs a serious overhaul and redesign. Its not enjoyable to watch at all, nor is it really fun to play.
On December 11 2010 12:09 jdreamer wrote: Allins or not, I seriously prefer those micro intense game instead of macro macro and wait for your opponents to blunder and slip in either macro or position. BoxeR did a lot of allins with crazy micro yet people worship him like god and being crowned the Terran Emperor so why can't the others do the same? Selective vision? I don't know.
I am fine with the status quo. If you scout an allins earlier and have better micro, I believe that you will hold it off and once you do so, you're basically way ahead your opponent.
I'm not a pro but that's my opinion.
There's a huge difference in the games though. Boxer's All-In micro intense styles stood out beside he was like a needle in a haystack. He was doing something so unorthodox, with such skill that it blew everyone's minds. Boxer made you doubt all you knew about Starcraft. SC2 All-inning is a regular strategy... nobody is being biased. It's like if EVERYBODY All-inned in SC2 and one person rose out and won as a macro legend, he would be the Boxer of sc2(except macro instead of micro, you get my point).
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote: How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
Couldn't have said it better myself. You never saw these worker conga line all-ins in BW (rarely). At this rate the game needs a serious overhaul and redesign. Its not enjoyable to watch at all, nor is it really fun to play.
We did though. It was called "DMZ" and it was removed very very quickly
I think everyone knows I'm going to come in and blame maps. Which are the problem. The tiniest screw up and it's gg. "Oh I went 13 gate PvZ on Steppes and he 6/7 Pooled? gg.... It's at the point where I 10 gate on all maps (besides Shakuras) just in case the opponent 6/7 pool's, I'm not totally dead....
It's not like cheese will not exist on different maps, it will just be much more of a risk....
Then again, there is this small possibility it is because of the concept of the game. Blizzard designed it to be action from the get-go compared to BW where players had a longer time before their army really kicked in to roll the enemy.
On December 11 2010 13:08 DuneBug wrote: I know it's getting old, but at least one glaring issue is the maps.
I usually don't say that. Like I don't think balance issues are a map problem, there are obvious balance issues that exist on every map. Nor do I want every map to be the same damn thing as lost temple w/o cliffs.
But i don't really think the maps are blizzard's fault. I don't know why tournaments aren't using redone ICCup maps by this point, if not making their own maps. Blizzard even recommended (and planned) that they would make their own maps.
It's not just the maps though.
Maps like Shakuras are still very much all-in/Committal despite being large and defendable maps.
For each match-up there's something different that makes players want to play all-in-ish. Here's my take on why match-ups devolve into all-ins from the player's mentality (Zerg match ups only as I don't understand PvT)...
ZvZ: Not all-in yay matchup. Games are just short by the highly aggressive nature, but that's fine. ZvP: Roulette to an extent! If the Protoss opens Forge first the game is almost always going to be all-in or immediately decided. Either the Protoss gets their cannons to block the natural and wins, or they get stopped and are vulnerable to an all-in. If the Protoss opens an expand then the zerg is all-in because 2 base to 2 base the zerg is way behind and grabbing a 3rd is a risky option because of things like void rays, dts, or a 6 gate push. If the Protoss opens without an expand they then can lean on the warpgates to create incredibly strong pushes that are very difficult to stop. This encourages both the Protoss to all-in and the Zerg to all-in before the Protoss does. Neither player wants to take this late game, the Protoss is worried about Zerg macro and the Zerg knows he can't defeat 200/200 Protoss balls. ZvT: The Terran player is afraid of zerg macro and the difficulty of expand. Speed banelings (or banelings in general) pose a very serious threat that can quickly turn the game against the Terran. Any bio gameplan is vulnerable to getting overrun by the banelings. Lategame the 200/200 Zerg army with tier 3 compositions is very potent against Terran making Terrans worried about playing for late game. The zerg on the other hand knows that Terran can turtle fairly well behind turrets/marines and that in a war of attrition the superior cost effectiveness of staple and situational Terran units like the marine, tank, medivac, and raven can cause the Zerg to eventually fall behind even if they 'win' every fight. Likewise the transition to broodlords or ultras is always tough and tend to have a lot of risks and even tier 3 Zerg compositions still end to leave heavily on ling/bling/muta. So midgame baneling busts or other strategies appeal as a safer choice to the zerg that has gained an advantage or decent economy going into the midgame.
As for why all-ins are effective more so than why players tend towards them... ZvP: Other than warp-gates or great supporting/game ending units like the void ray, immortal, or DTs Protoss can open themselves up to all-ins because they can set themselves up very well to do so. Early on Protoss can trade gas without many minerals (sentries) to ensure safety vs all but all-ins and use the extra minerals to setup for strong pushes. At the same time if the Protoss goes for a more tech or eco opening their gas & minerals appear to be strained and they are unable to effectively get both the general protection of sentries and a defensive force (zealots/sentries) quickly enough and they open up a window of opportunity for the zerg. Likewise the ease of expo blocking tends to put zerg in a situation vs eco builds where they're behind economically with a tough shot at catching up, but have the potential to quickly field a lot of units to overwhelm the temporarily vulnerable Protoss. ZvT: In this match up Zerg lacks the ability early to trade gas for protection. The only options they have out the gate are lings and crawlers. Mules provide the connection to put it all together. The mules allow for an early temporary boost to stay even with the Zerg's income while they get the faster rax to stay even with production. The follow up mules allow for the Terran to keep up a reasonable amount of production while the zerg has to pull all workers to defend. Meanwhile spine crawlers take long to build and are only moderately effective given their slow attack rate and 5hp of overkill. On the zerg side mid/late banelings just offer a superior chance to bust any Terran that shows any signs of weakness and can be made enmass completely out of surprise. A Zerg with muta/ling may suddenly cut muta production and morph a potentially game ending amount of banelings. The temptation/pay-off for such aggression is often too sweet to pass up. Likewise the Zerg is encouraged to do this because their ling defenses will lose effectiveness over time as marines grow in numbers and gain more medivacs and tanks start being massed.
Anyways my point is that I don't think it's just the maps. A lot of the game design and balance encourages all-in plays over more long term strategies. Maybe some or a lot of this will change as players figure stuff out, we will have to see.
It's dumb to see how effective workers fight and draw fire, it makes SCV's + Marines so powerful (not to mention MULEs cover the lost pretty well). I think this really encourages all-ins for Terrans especially when Terran have no melee units so they synergize with SCV's so well. Fighting with drones or probes just interrupt spaces that should be occupied by zealots or zerglings and decrease the overall DPS. And to think that SCV's used to have 60hp.
allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
On December 11 2010 14:00 universalwill wrote: allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
That's not even really true considering that Protoss arguably have the strongest pressure/'all-in' attacks out of any race. It's way way way harder as Z to deal with the Protoss all-ins than it is the Terran ones, meanwhile TvP it's the Protoss that gets the stronger all-ins.
Often times 2 Rax is a joke compared to the Protoss options.
Problem with SC2 right now is every race has some unbeatable(or extremely hard to stop when players are at the same level) BO or timing attack. And as we know from Broodwar, nothing can be unbeatable, once something is unbeatable the whole e-sport thing is finished.
For Terran, its bunker rush and allin. For Protoss its 1 base timing and late game ultimate ball. For Zerg its mega-macro mode late game.
SC2 at this stage need some damn good balance patch and a overhaul on the next expansion. The Mule, the warpgate tech, the larva inject I think these 3 things needs a re-design.
Some unit needs a complete re-design as well such as Marauder for terran, Baneling for zerg and Sentry for Protoss. These 3 units are cool but sometime, its very easy for them to break the game. Marauder for being good at almost everything that walk. Sentry for instanly send a defending player to there death. Baneling for completely turning a battle of TvZ around even the terran dodge most of them.
Personally, I can't see any improvement now through balance patches. We still will see allin Terran, late game monster Zerg and timing god Protoss. All I hope is somehow Blizzard will do something to lesser these things, and get there job done right in the expansion.
On December 11 2010 14:00 universalwill wrote: allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
Please dont turn this thread into another flame war. We have enough of that.
On December 11 2010 14:03 Caphe wrote: Problem with SC2 right now seems to be, every race has some unbeatable(or extremely hard to beat when players are at the same level) BO or timing attack. And as we know from Broodwar, nothing can be unbeatable, once something is unbeatable the whole e-sport thing is finished.
For Terra, its bunker rush and allin. For Protoss its 1 base timing and late game ultimate ball. For Zerg its mega-macro mode late game.
SC2 at this stage need some damn good balance patch and a overhaul on the next expansion. The Mule, the warpgate tech, the larva inject I think these 3 things needs a re-design.
Some unit needs a complete re-design as well such as Marauder for terran, Baneling for zerg and Sentry for Protoss. These 3 units are cool but sometime, its very easy for them to break the game. Marauder for being good at almost everything that walk. Sentry for instanly send a defending player to there death. Baneling for completely turning a battle of TvZ around even the terran dodge most of them.
Personally, I can't see any improvement now through balance patches. We still will see allin Terran, late game monster Zerg and timing god Protoss. All I hope is somehow Blizzard will do something to lesser these things, and get there job done right in the expansion.
I don't think the units necessarily need a re-design, re-balancing would work fine. If Sentries couldn't stockpile as many FFs or did less ranged damage and Banelings didn't do as much damage to buildings or had the same speed on creep, but slightly slower off, then it'd balance out more for those units*. Likewise adjusting things like the max # of larva/hatchery could help a ton in keeping zerg from being dominate late game. You don't always need to think big to make a big change on how the game plays.
*I'm not actually recommending these changes or anything, they're just supposed to be examples.
What made fruitdealer so epic in season 1? He held off all those All Ins that people did against him that was considered "imba". Same goes for Nestea in season 2. There will always be a hero that can stop those things and show and prove them selves to be a superior player and that is the way things should be.
All-ins are essential to the game. You can go all in from 1 base. You can go all in from 2 bases. You can go all in from 3 or from 4. Part of the game's appeal is the song-and-dance of 'how little defense can you get away with while being as greedy as possible without being punished with an all in'. Removing all-ins would make the game boring.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
I'm on the hands off side at least for a while. I think that even in situations where people will swear up and down there is no solution, a solution does usually creep up. Certainly it will be a problem if months from now the same all-ins are winning at the same rate. I think that would show it's time to make a change because the issue just isn't solvable.
All-ins will always be a part of the game. They HAVE to be; because they are the strategic option that one uses to GREAT effect against players who open with economic builds.
Imagine a game where you can't go 'all-in' (and to do this, you'd have to have it so SCVs can't attack). What happens then? You've just denied many many players their strongest counter to early hatch/nexus/CC.
Even then, it's not as easy as nerfing mining units. Because then, zerg 6 pool would become extremely effective etc.
No, balancing against 'all-ins' is as stupid as asking Blizzard to balance against economic builds. Because both are part and parcel of strategic games.
Both always have to be options. They are in real wars, they are in Starcraft 1 and Broodwar, and they need to be in Starcraft 2, unless you plan on continuing to play what will become an extremely dull and boring game.
None of the match-ups are understood yet. Terran players are doing bio-centric plays in all three, while only TvT really sees mech play. Koreans are shifting away from banshees now and more toward 2 rax (in almost every game.) Time is needed to determine whether anything needs balancing. I'd say some of the underused units need some buffs, but otherwise, nothing significant really needs changing.
Looking at Jinro's play, we see that he beat other players reasonably, yet himself got owned by MC. The skill differences even among pros are huge right now, and so because the match ups are not understood well by most players, differences in skill result in one-sided games. For example, MC's PvT is nearly unstoppable right now, IMO because Terrans are playing too much bio vs toss. Sentries are basically the antibio with force field; you can't repair a forcefielded bunker, and a split army gets destroyed by stalkers, even if the split isn't complete, but just temporary. This was obvious when MC was able to expand with 3 gates and still completely destroy Jinro's units.
ZvZ is understood decently well by most high tier players, I think. Nestea and Fruitdealer seem to understand ZvZ pretty well, and I think Nestea right now is unbeatable ZvZ. TvT is understood I think by some players, but TvT styles are inconsistent, and we haven't seen anyone truly dominant in that match up. PvP is not often seen right now because of the rarity of Protoss, and I think that's another matchup that is not understood well. Macro games will come into play I think when people realize the power of forge first. In PvP right now, 4 gates, blink stalker builds, and DT rushes seem to dominate.
Right now MC dominates PvT, and I think he has the best PvT for the current set of builds. I think PvT and TvP will evolve as Terran players start playing differently. Right now, robo tech for protoss is completely unnecessary in PvT, except against banshee builds. Even so, P players can pull off gateway rushes that beat 1/1/1. Mech is also untouched in this matchup, from recent trends. IMO Terran players rely too much on their bio, even against high templar/colossus. Marauders are great, but a big ball of them becomes redundant when you're getting stormed, force fielded, and lasered. There is no clear player who is strong TvP. In fact, I don't think any current Terran understands TvP even close to well.
TvZ and ZvT are probably the most evolved mixed matchups, but the midgame is still evolving really fast. Zerg players are learning to deal with 2 rax play, and once most zergs are patient and able to hold off 2 rax I think we'll see even more development in TvZ. Right now it feels like Z players get an auto-win if they can hold their third, probably because Terran players are not used to macro play against Zergs past two base.
PvZ is a little weird right now, but I think with some time they'll evolve further. Right now we're seeing a trend toward stargate builds with a later robo, since mobile detection in PvZ is really unnecessary unless laired Roaches are out. Chargelots are very undervalued right now, as is the forge. HTs and DTs are also quite undervalued vs Zerg, I think. If Protoss can learn to fast expand safely behind a forge, I think +1 chargelot into phoenix/DT or mass gateway high templar can be effective in PvZ. On the other side of the aisle, I think Z players just need to learn to deal with massed colossus. Muta play is strong against P, and sniping sentries and colossus is a must. I think spire into a hydra tech switch could be strong, especially if it's done off three bases. As toss players start going stargate, I think it's going to be necessary for Zerg players to respond in kind with spire/hydra builds.
If a patch were to change anything, I think it would be best to buff accessibility of underused units. Examples:
Protoss: Decrease cost of fleet beacon to 200/200. Decrease buildtime of carriers from 120 seconds to 105 seconds. Decrease Phoenix buildtime by 5 seconds (not as drastic as PTR)
Zerg: Decrease spine crawler build time from 50 seconds to 40 seconds Change burrow to hatchery tech Decrease overlord drop research to 110 seconds from 130 seconds
Terran: Add a function to the reaper speed upgrade that allows them to be built out of reactored barracks Combine the cloak and energy upgrade for ghosts Decrease Raven cost to 100 minerals, 175 gas
TL;DR IMO, none of the matchups are understood well right now. We need time to learn nuances and proper builds in each of the matchups. GSL, with so little turnaround time, is focused on survival and temporary brilliance as opposed to consistency. Next year will probably be better for the evolution of the game, but so far we've gone very far already.
If you want to slow all ins static defenses need to be stronger. Maybe remove engineering bay req for PF or allow switch from OC to PF. Make spines stronger. Toss needs something too that can't be moved to opponents base but still defends.
Make spines build much faster and maybe be morphable like the good old creep colony/switchable into spore/spine modes and the allins will die out. Terran and toss can Wallin, bunker or Cannon so they don't need any increased defence.
On December 11 2010 14:09 dizzy101 wrote: All-ins are essential to the game. You can go all in from 1 base. You can go all in from 2 bases. You can go all in from 3 or from 4. Part of the game's appeal is the song-and-dance of 'how little defense can you get away with while being as greedy as possible without being punished with an all in'. Removing all-ins would make the game boring.
I don't think people are talking about 4 base "all ins" but 1 base rushing in SCVs and marines etc e.g. 3-4 min all ins.
I would say that no, they do not have a responsibility to change it. As much as people here think they have the right to have the game the way they want it, that's not the case. While I feel Blizzard definitely SHOULD change it if it become that way, they are not compelled in any way to do so.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
Doing a fast expansion without knowing what your enemy does is executing a build order blindly. Doing a build order blindly and then bit*hing that you lost if counterproductive.
Do you really expect to win no matter what your enemy does? All-ins are very "counterable".
I would have to say that the easiest (if not the best) way to reduce (NOT REMOVE) early game "All-ins" would be to increase map size, this would make "All-ins" riskier but also more unexpected, which is the major advantage to "All-ins"
They are and will forever be viable strategies (especially in ladder).
More on topic however.
Blizzard has the right and indeed the obligation to make the game both fun for the players and as an ESPORT fun for the viewers. Although by constantly changing units and upgrades, they arent giving the players time to adjust and figure out how to beat the current trends.
Which is why changing the map pool to include large maps, should help. This means that no units are effectively changed and yet new strategies will need to be developed as older trends become less and less effective.
As a long time reader (way longer than my 2007 join date) i have often wondered, does it occur to the many "balance the game based on what pro's do" fanatics here that BW for the vast majority of its major balancing, was never really balanced using this pro approach?
Maybe that's why SC2 is quite dull as many have pointed out - Blizzard clearly place huge emphasis on the pro scene and what high level players say, both now and during development. Look where it has led us.....
I think using the "pro balance" method is going to lead eventually to every game, regardless of race, playing out like a ZVZ or TVT at pro level...which will increase the whining on here to damn near internet destroying levels
Where it has gotten us is because of the pro balance and big money at stake, everyone better get used to all-ins and short games no matter the matchup because that's where we're going to end up. It's no different to boxing or MMA - the contestants want that fight over in 5 seconds flat if it is at all possible, it's what they train for and quite often what they achieve (maybe not quite 5 secs), and the spectators have to deal with it.
Of course we could just 1v1 on massive maps thereby forcing the game straight to a high tier expansion + macro war where the audience get their 20+ mins of game by default.
I would like to know how you can possibly nerf all in strats without breaking balance in another way.
Because it seems like people want the game to be a macro game where whoever reaches 200/200 will win, otherwise if you attack earlier you're going to fall behind and lose.
All in strats can't be nerfed unless you change other things, fact.
i really like ICCUPS maps tbh. Their games last longer (except for the gold beside the base which terran can fly too LOL) and they are BIG!! Too much cheese and imbalance things in Blizzard maps :/
I am going to throw my cap in with the people who say the game needs larger maps. I don't think there is any thing wrong with all-ins, and agree with the people who say it is part of the game, but the majority of Blizzard maps heavily favor 1- or 2-base all-ins. And as far as this goes, I think Blizz DOES have a responsibility on this point. They need a larger, more diverse map pool. This is such a crucial, integral part of their game, and if they continue designing and using maps which punish expanding and favor all-ins, the game will not develop to its full potential.
They seem to be totally ignoring the issue, tho. I am so desperate for new maps. T_T
I want to see the map pool include much larger maps, with easily defended chokes. I also want to see the return of the 1/3 hit rate while firing against units with the high ground. Also, scouting needs to be made easier. No build should be unscoutable. Also somehow balance the 2 rax. I think these things would go a long way towards limiting the strength of rush strategies without harming the balance of the game.
On December 11 2010 06:58 storm44 wrote: I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
The size of maps isn't really an issue. Unless you want to remove rushing from the game or turn it into a cheesefest instead.
In my opinion if the maps are so huge that when you send a unit to his base, he's already made two units during that time, makes the game rather boring. We don't wanna turn SC2 into "macro macro macro, battle, win" type of game.
The reason Terran marine+scv all-in is so good is obviously because marines are a ranged unit while zerglings and zealots are melee. Send the scvs to take the damage and marines deal the damage from the back. How about marines start with spears and a factory upgrade gives them range? :D
Or a more serious solution would be to delay orbital. Factory requirement for orbital?
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote: [b] - 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.
Why are allins not entertaining to watch? I personally do not mind to watch an allin, as long as it is not every game. Allins are a part of every strategy game, and it is something you should practice doing, as well as practice defending because of that.
For example that Terran dude that allins every game (cannot think of his name), I LOLLED so hard when he got roflstomped by FD. FD was sooooo much better than the guy, so the skillceiling may be lower for allins, when a better person gets past the allin skill ceiling he will be able to roflstomp someone like him.. at least with a little bit of practice
What do you suggest Blizzard does to ' fix' allins? Nerf all the early game units, or nerf scv's/probes/drones? that will never happen, so allins will always exist. What would this game be without the early game threats of allins? I do not like to watch games where both players macro insanely hard to get 200/200 and attack into eachother. Small micro battles are more entertaining to watch IMO.
Blizzard cannot make the game enjoyable to watch for everyone because people have different taste.
I personally think cheese builds are a nice break of pace and keep you on your toes. Watching players cheese each other can be fun. On the ladder (EU one), I haven't seen that much cheese in diamond and even if there are a few lame openings, it's still part of the game. Korean players seem to be very enthusiastic about these all-in pushes and especially in the GSL. People do this in order to get the prize money, and the sum is quite attractive. That's why they abuse the game mechanics. Dreamhack showed us some AMAZING macro games and I don't think that all-ins are that popular in EU (mb NA as well). It's not like every game is an all-in cheese.
What I mean by this point is that all-ins are not game breaking. The only issue we have right now is the GSL, which is full of cheesers and I don't think players such as (GSL 3 spoiler) + Show Spoiler +
Rain, to be in the final.
Blizz can't do much at this point, except try to fine tune these early pushes, but it's a tricky subject since defending against these BOs has always been about luck/positioning/decision-making.
What I find ironic is that the same people who whine about all in's also complain about having to watch TvT's, which is arguably the matchup most prone to macro play (though it certainly has aggressive builds/all ins available.)
Also, as mentioned earlier, people are calling short rush games all in's... the definition of an all in is putting all your chips in: aka damaging your economy so bad that if your attack does not succeed, then you lose the game. Attacking EARLY is not an all in; ultimately about 10% of games are all in as a very generous estimate. That hardly constitutes the hypothesis that all games will soon be all in.
The thing with cheese is, in its current state, it is very hard to defend unless you're expecting it pre-game. However if your anti-cheese is spotted, they simply don't attack and you've wasted a shit ton of resources on static defense or currently useless units while they laugh at you and expand. It's a balance thing that can't really be fixed... except maybe by bigger maps. StarCraft has always been a game of information. If I have the correct information in-game, I should be able to win given that I'm the better player. If I spot an all in coming the moment it leaves, I should be able to put up enough defense to crush it (be it units or static defense). The main problem is that you NEVER have enough time to complete those things before the rush gets there. And you can't decrease the build time on ANY of these because that would make cheese that much more powerful considering anti-cheese is essentially cheese.
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.
dont agree with the second part. While for most good diamond players all ins might be boring to watch, i dont think that is the case for the average spectator who is maybe gold lvl or dont even play ladder at all early game all ins are the most entertaining to watch for the audience remember how the crowd goes cheering and oooh ahhhh when they see someone put a pool down at 6 at gsl The game is exiting and fast, and its over fast also but thats not a problem for the audience because the next game starts right after Long games also can be nice to watch occasionally ( i remember seeing an awesome and verry long game in gsl played by socke) but still think that the average public enjoys short games more then long games
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
Totally agreed. Bigger maps are fine as long as terran can still harrass to stay even. Or else they get way behind way too fast.
Hellions dont do much. Reapers are out. The only thing terran has is banshee and it comes quite late and it can be easily delt with
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
wat do you mean later in the game?
you think by making maps where terrans cant rush and zerg can get a macro lead every game is the solution?
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
wat do you mean later in the game?
you think by making maps where terrans cant rush and zerg can get a macro lead every game is the solution?
we're supposed to have a macro lead, our units are significantly less cost-effective, and are designed that way, so we need more of them than you. If we don't get a macro lead very very early, once your orbital command finishes you're way ahead with mules alone. I'm not saying blizzard didn't go a bit overboard on nerfing the harass options, but you're being ridiculous.
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
I don't know what the proper solution is and neither does Blizzard seeing the recent PTR patch. I just know Terran has limited mobility as the game progresses since muta can move across the map at will much faster than anything Terran has. So it's difficult to slow zerg from expanding while they mass up expos so when you are finally in a position to turn the tide you are so far behind already. If you lose your army 2 or 3 times you are done.
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
Totally agreed. Bigger maps are fine as long as terran can still harrass to stay even. Or else they get way behind way too fast.
Hellions dont do much. Reapers are out. The only thing terran has is banshee and it comes quite late and it can be easily delt with
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
I get what you're saying, terran is at a disadvantage late game. It basicly amounts to either making an early push to try and win while you're still at an advantage or applying constant pressure to make sure that your opponent doesn't actually reach late game tech.
It's actually IMHO a huge reason why mass mariners is so popular among terrans right now in TvZ, it allows terrans to put constant pressure on the zerg player so they don't get to high tech units like brood lords that tear marines apart.
On December 11 2010 06:58 storm44 wrote: I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
Even on the bigger rush distance maps like Scrap, Xel, Blistering, and Shakuras the all ins are still incredibly strong and hardly watered down, I think it has a lot to do with the extra macro mechanics that weren't in Brood War more so then anything else.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
QFT leave the game be.
The OP's arguments are somewhat biased. This thread assumes that everyone doesn't like the current state or that all-ins are seen as bad by everyone. One of his arguments is that all-ins are boring to watch which is simply not the case for alot of people.
The amount of all-ins will reduce as people learn to deal with them if people keep asking for changes from blizz then there will continue to be alot of all-ins because people will have to learn the timings again depending ont he change. Starcraft 2 just needs to settle right now and stop being tinkered with. I think 2.0 patch will be one that lasts for a bit. They are really running this through the ringer so just give it time.
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.
Really like this, although I don't think maps are entirely to blame.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
QFT leave the game be.
The OP's arguments are somewhat biased. This thread assumes that everyone doesn't like the current state or that all-ins are seen as bad by everyone. One of his arguments is that all-ins are boring to watch which is simply not the case for alot of people.
The amount of all-ins will reduce as people learn to deal with them if people keep asking for changes from blizz then there will continue to be alot of all-ins because people will have to learn the timings again depending ont he change. Starcraft 2 just needs to settle right now and stop being tinkered with. I think 2.0 patch will be one that lasts for a bit. They are really running this through the ringer so just give it time.
I still get cannon rushed like many others do and there have been changes to the game plenty. That hasn't gone away. That's been around since broodwar. So I don't really understand the logic in letting things "settle" and it'll go away when the early game isn't the only problem that needs fixing.
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)
Sorry OP but what you say is just wrong, games can and very often do go to late games. Rebalancing games to make then even longer is a really bad idea for a number of reasons.
1/ Long games are fun to watch and play yes, but, imagine nearly every game you watch and play going on +30 minutes, it would get very boring very quickly. 2/ Zerg and Protoss have such strong late games compared to Terran it would just be unfair. 3/ All-ins and cheeses are an integral part of the game, it would cripple the fun knowing you don't have to worry about anything early on. 4/ Long games are meant to happen naturally when players lock horns and can't find a way to take each other down, 'manufacturing' long games won't have the same appeal.
Also to say all-in's require not very much skill is ridiculous, especially from the way you talk I assume you base your points on the GSL. EVERYTHING takes skill in the GSL, yes you need less macro management for an all-in but you need far far far more micro management to either all-in or defend an all-in.
The game needs to be made fun to play, the game is not designed for a spectator sport, the spectator side grew out of the game, so the arguement to make the game more 'fun to watch', lol, I'm really glad that the people who think that don't work for blizzard, they would destroy the game so quickly.
All-in's are just as fun and exciting to watch because take the GSL, they have to be executed near perfectly to work, it just takes a different type of skill than a macro game.
Lastly, please don't come up with these ideas for balance because 99.9% anyone who comes up with their own balance ideas always suggest pure garbage and also only come up with things that will benefit their race.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
I think this will sort itself out all by itself when players get better. If it dosn't I think Blizzard should wait for the next expansion before rebalancing the whole 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)
Sorry OP but what you say is just wrong, games can and very often do go to late games. Rebalancing games to make then even longer is a really bad idea for a number of reasons.
1/ Long games are fun to watch and play yes, but, imagine nearly every game you watch and play going on +30 minutes, it would get very boring very quickly. 2/ Zerg and Protoss have such strong late games compared to Terran it would just be unfair. 3/ All-ins and cheeses are an integral part of the game, it would cripple the fun knowing you don't have to worry about anything early on. 4/ Long games are meant to happen naturally when players lock horns and can't find a way to take each other down, 'manufacturing' long games won't have the same appeal.
Also to say all-in's require not very much skill is ridiculous, especially from the way you talk I assume you base your points on the GSL. EVERYTHING takes skill in the GSL, yes you need less macro management for an all-in but you need far far far more micro management to either all-in or defend an all-in.
The game needs to be made fun to play, the game is not designed for a spectator sport, the spectator side grew out of the game, so the arguement to make the game more 'fun to watch', lol, I'm really glad that the people who think that don't work for blizzard, they would destroy the game so quickly.
All-in's are just as fun and exciting to watch because take the GSL, they have to be executed near perfectly to work, it just takes a different type of skill than a macro game.
Lastly, please don't come up with these ideas for balance because 99.9% anyone who comes up with their own balance ideas always suggest pure garbage and also only come up with things that will benefit their race.
Great points! I especially think number 4 needs to be restated - good long games occur when there is constant pressure throughout the game, by one or both players. The maps still may need to be changed, but changing them without understanding what actually makes a good game would be bad.
That's the main reason I don't mind watching (or playing against cheese). One player is pressuring and the other absolutely has to defend or they lose. Having the only pressure in the first 7-8 minutes of the game come from the scouting worker is boring. That doesn't mean all early pressure needs to be cheese, but just mindlessly encouraging macro games by creating long rush distances is not the right answer.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days as its standard to expand while attacking.
Currently I feel like the map pool encourages a huge amount of all-in play. Right now, two of the maps (LT and Delta) more conducive to longer tech/macro oriented games hold huge disadvantages when taking your natural against T. A lot of the 2 player maps don't have viable thirds, so two-base all-ins almost seem necessary.
I can understand T's frustration with their reduced harassment options (you pretty much need a starport to harass now), but drops have really gone out of fashion. They're still very viable, but games never get to that point anymore given the popularity of Marine+SCV all-in.
I feel like Blizzard is really struggling with balancing harassment options for T specifically where the harass is effective but doesn't kill the opponent outright. For P, it seems like the Phoenix buff will really help in that respect, but for T, I really can only imagine bringing reaper speed back to rax tech, and requiring a factory for stim might help delay marine all-ins with stim, encouraging T to find other options.
On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
QFT leave the game be.
The OP's arguments are somewhat biased. This thread assumes that everyone doesn't like the current state or that all-ins are seen as bad by everyone. One of his arguments is that all-ins are boring to watch which is simply not the case for alot of people.
The amount of all-ins will reduce as people learn to deal with them if people keep asking for changes from blizz then there will continue to be alot of all-ins because people will have to learn the timings again depending ont he change. Starcraft 2 just needs to settle right now and stop being tinkered with. I think 2.0 patch will be one that lasts for a bit. They are really running this through the ringer so just give it time.
I still get cannon rushed like many others do and there have been changes to the game plenty. That hasn't gone away. That's been around since broodwar. So I don't really understand the logic in letting things "settle" and it'll go away when the early game isn't the only problem that needs fixing.
From reading the OP he is referring to all-in timing attacks not specifically cheese. How one can be distinguished from another is personal opinion. So cannon rushing IMO is cheese. Its been around since SC1 just like 6 pool and proxy rax. So thats a different subject. As far as specific all-in timing attacks the variety and frequency will decrease as the game and community evolve. You will see 4 gates and 2 rax rushes when the counter is found they just won't be used as frequency but more of a desperation move or to throw someone off in a Bo3 or Bo5 etc.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
FIFY.
Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
Zealot void is not all-in if he does enough damage but can't break the terran and pulls back retreats.
If we use MC v Jinro the voids would have given MC some breathing room and map control for a enough time to expand.
All-ins aren't bad either they keep the game fresh and not stale. The game is still new so all-ins are more effective right now.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
FIFY.
Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production."
Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes.
Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
Zealot void is not all-in if he does enough damage but can't break the terran and pulls back retreats.
If we use MC v Jinro the voids would have given MC some breathing room and map control for a enough time to expand.
All-ins aren't bad either they keep the game fresh and not stale. The game is still new so all-ins are more effective right now.
If you can kill enough it works out you can carry on the game, but the intention is all-in if you are putting everything into that attack to win the game.
Did the report button disappear or something? I don;t see it anywhere.... Anyway, I think if it comes to that point, then of course Blizzard will have to step in and re-balance some things, but I don't think that will be the case.
OP takes for a fact that people prefer to watch macro games (or at least it seems so dont kill me ;p). I, on the other hand, prefer to watch all-ins and early timing attack with few units.
It's a matter of taste.
Can we add a poll to see how many people are for and against the current state of the game? (regarding all-ins)
It was a hypothetical afou. If you want to get a poll on the current state of the game, you could open a thread and I would be more then happy to vote on it <3
I think the concept of balancing all-Ins is relatively simple. The actual balancing is the hard part.
Balanced all-ins: Can be reasonably defended against with proper scouting and response. Is very effective vs. Unprepared or Eco/teching opponent.
Imbalances all-ins: Can not be reasonably, or possibly, defended against at all regardless of knowledge of the attack coming. Or unable to do so without unfair or inequivalant economic damage to your own economy.
Not really a difficult concept or issue in my opinion. How to actually achieve the above however Is another story.
*edit*. To make more in line with the OP. The state of all-ins is a balance issue not flavor of the game. Because by simple logic if they do not conform to the above the game is in fact broken, and requires little to no skill.
steppes of war and delta quadrant are garbage. just like incineration zone, they are bad and need to go. let's get fighting ****ing spirit back and see how games play out then; I bet it would be a LOT different and then we could find out if there is any real credence to this whole "terran late game sucks" thing because we would see pro matches almost always go into the late game.
If the game reach the point where all-in is the most effective strategy, then YES Blizzard should do something. However, I think we are still far from that point.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
FIFY.
Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production."
Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes.
Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army.
This is why I specified "cutting investment in your base." I understand the constantly build probes and pylons philosophy. But if you know your opponent is doing this, you can cut probes, build more units, and punish him accordingly. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and in no way an "all in," I don't see what people are complaining about.
I do understand the importance of getting the hatch up quick as a zerg now, but I still think it's punishable by a good rush, and sensibly so.
On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote: Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . .
on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable.
I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game.
and TvZ is the same.
The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that?
First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push.
Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in.
One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line.
voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S
One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking.
@gotlucky yeah exactly
FIFY.
Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production."
Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes.
Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army.
This is why I specified "cutting investment in your base." I understand the constantly build probes and pylons philosophy. But if you know your opponent is doing this, you can cut probes, build more units, and punish him accordingly. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and in no way an "all in," I don't see what people are complaining about.
I do understand the importance of getting the hatch up quick as a zerg now, but I still think it's punishable by a good rush, and sensibly so.
Sorry for the confusion, because I actually agree with what you are saying here. I was mainly responding to your point "Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..?"
I had wanted to point out that just because you are building an army does not mean you are necessarily cutting investment in your base - and that is what your question was asking.
Yes, I do think that cutting probes to punish a greedy opponent is a legitimate strategy (I do it when I have greedy opponents). I think any strategy that works is legit. But I also do agree with Cephei when he says that making an army at the expense of long term play (expanding) is an all-in strategy. He also said that he thinks the strategy is better when you don't cut your economy and play for the long term.
Whether or not you think the strategy is stronger as an all-in or as a transition is irrevelevant to his point. He was correctly (IMO) defining it as an all-in when cutting probes.
So, I think we largely agree, but maybe we don't. I'm no longer clear what your point is now .
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.
So who should be the game development police?
Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine.
So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
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.
So who should be the game development police?
Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine.
So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
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.
So who should be the game development police?
Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine.
So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
lolwut? Who thinks marines are weak?
It all depends on what stage of the game you are in, in mid-late game marines are pretty weak. But you can't really label them as anything in general.
I think Blizzard should wait some time to see if it balances itself out. Because 90% of zerg players are practicing against all ins. At some point, I think, someone will find a way to effective counter this strategy. If not, Blizzard should fix it.
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.
So who should be the game development police?
Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine.
So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
lolwut? Who thinks marines are weak?
I'm just using marines as an example, point is a lot of people have a lot of different opinions about everything.
If you want a more accurate example, when i was back in the lower leagues, i got QQ'd a lot about terrans being OP, alternativly, (now this was months ago) I thought terran was UP because i didn't know how to properly deal with a muta harrass
There are only a few areas where opinions actually become unanimous, like when blizzard wanted to terrestrially limiting FG, almost everyone, even non-zerg players was against it.
On December 12 2010 04:47 gotlucky wrote: Sorry for the confusion, because I actually agree with what you are saying here. I was mainly responding to your point "Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..?"
I had wanted to point out that just because you are building an army does not mean you are necessarily cutting investment in your base - and that is what your question was asking.
Yes, I do think that cutting probes to punish a greedy opponent is a legitimate strategy (I do it when I have greedy opponents). I think any strategy that works is legit. But I also do agree with Cephei when he says that making an army at the expense of long term play (expanding) is an all-in strategy. He also said that he thinks the strategy is better when you don't cut your economy and play for the long term.
Whether or not you think the strategy is stronger as an all-in or as a transition is irrevelevant to his point. He was correctly (IMO) defining it as an all-in when cutting probes.
So, I think we largely agree, but maybe we don't. I'm no longer clear what your point is now .
Sorry :\
Yes, we agree mostly.
But! I don't consider one-base play an all-in. You are just sacrificing your long-term likelihood of winning. Since comebacks are so rare in SC2, well.... maybe it is a bit "all-in" ish.
I don't consider it a true all-in unless you're prepared to GG if your attack gets fended of.
But! I don't consider one-base play an all-in. You are just sacrificing your long-term likelihood of winning. Since comebacks are so rare in SC2, well.... maybe it is a bit "all-in" ish.
I don't consider it a true all-in unless you're prepared to GG if your attack gets fended of.
Sacrificing you long-term chances is basically the definition of all-in.
But! I don't consider one-base play an all-in. You are just sacrificing your long-term likelihood of winning. Since comebacks are so rare in SC2, well.... maybe it is a bit "all-in" ish.
I don't consider it a true all-in unless you're prepared to GG if your attack gets fended of.
Sacrificing you long-term chances is basically the definition of all-in.
How about giving units on cliffs 1 extra range when shooting to low ground.
I know it's not good to bring back the randomness of BW by not having all shots hit on high ground, but 1 extra range seems logical and would give a bit back to defenders advantage on the cliff. Of course, this doesn't affect melee units at all, but they're not the ones that are being punished by cliff problems in the first place.
I do think that once the maps start to have:
1. farther nats/mains from each other -- helps negate some of the working rushing + units farther to travel except P with warp gates 2. more closed nats
The game will start shifting more heavily to macro.
However, toss can still go with cheese early because of warp gates. I wouldn't mind seeing warp gates moved to twilight council for example, and pushing queens and orbital command back to after lair and after factory respectively.
That would start to push back the super early production for units which makes all in-ing so powerful.
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game.
ye if there would be 10 million games, even bloodbath could produce epic games...
most of the 2 player maps are just too small, macro play almost impossible, because its all in every single time.
i think the 4 players maps are far better. if you would strech DQ a bit, so its larger overall, it would be amazing aswell.
I agree with that all-in strats are too powerful. What freightens me the most is when units will come in from the other expansions. The game will end up really wierd, there will be powerful and dangerous strats everywhere. Literally everywhere. As a player that plays more than average, I can say with ease that, I still haven't figured out some of the more obvious counter strats. When this game is all set and done, It will be a menace to learn it all and will be damaging for players due to it's complexity.
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game.
so, every ladder game or GSL tournament ever played in sc2 has been on the current map pool that blizzard made, which almost everyone agrees that they're much too small, so saying that some of the best games between pros have been on the current ladder maps is like saying that some of the best chess matches have been played on a chessboard. duh? maybe chess would be better played on the surface of the sun but all we have are chessboards.
the point isn't that good games can be played on the current maps, it's that the current maps facilitate bad games. yes, it's entirely possible to counter the lol-all-in-every-single-game terran attack on steppes of war, and then go on to have a bloody massacre of a fight while you claw with tooth and nail for victory, but should you HAVE to worry about the entire terran base and their relatives attacking you like white trash texans at 4minutes into the game? while they keep their economy going with lolmules while (if you're zerg) you pull everything you have to survive?
sorry, but your argument is brainless and incorrect. l2think.
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game.
lol what? Or you could make maps that arent HORRIBLE and unbalanced. The games are good despite the maps.
If all we had to play was 4 player maps that would be boring, if every map was big protoss would be favoured on every map because they can 4 gate no matter the size of the map eg. shakuras.
The maps aren't horrible, you just can't play them.
Warsong, saying everyone agrees the maps are too small is as brainless a statement as what you make out mine to be, not everyone agrees, you mean you agree and a few dozen on this thread also agree. Also 'lolmules' don't last very long, and also it means the terran economy has been trash anyway up until the point they use them, which means zerg will have built enough of an economic advantage to pull everything off and keep himself alive. The fact that zerg are heavily favoured against terran late game is the reason they get abused so much in the early game, if you want to stop the all-in's then lets nerf your late game macro thanks.
413X, all-in's are only as powerful as the opposing player is bad at scouting it, if all-in's are scouted they can be stopped, if they aren't or scouted too late they are rarely able to stop it. Like I've said on another thread, the game isn't made for spectator purposes, it's made for gameplay, sorry but the thought of having to play every game +30 minutes is a pretty terrible one.
The maps are fine and make interesting games, all-ins or not. Suggesting a total new map pool is a dumb idea.
I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
On December 12 2010 08:25 ducis wrote: As the game gets more polished and understood, all ins will get less popular
Any evidences of that ? Why would any Terran want to go into the late-game against Zerg where he basically get outmacroed unless he is better than the Zerg in which case he could also have all-ined and end the game 15 minutes before ?
Macro got popular in SC1 because each race had a fair shot at winning games in the lategame and also to defeat any timing-pushes preventing them from getting there. As these conditions have not yet proofed to be fullfilled in Starcraft 2, there is no reason to believe that the game is meant to be plaid like that (in its current balance state at least). It made me laugh when I heard Artosis claiming several times that Jinro plaid Terran as it is meant to be plaid and then see him getting destroid 4 times in a row because of the huge holes in his macro strategy.
The optimal strategy is not necessarily macro-orientated. Forget everything you know about Starcraft 1 when talking about STARCRAFT 2 None of the SC2 MU look like their SC1 relatives.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
2 Zergs talking about the balance of ZvT, impartial views ftw. Idra is easily the most biased and hated SC1 PGMer of all-time, so I wouldn't take his word for it. For instance, in the Beta Idra switched from Protoss to Zerg because Zerg relies less on micro/timing pushes and has better macro thus suit more his playstyle, yet now that he's an accomplished Zerg player he would deny any macro advantages over Protoss.
- 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
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
You are forgetting stim packs are OP because it makes the DPS too high and medivacs are OP because they heal too quickly and they can transport.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
maybe if reapers werent faster than everything zerg had, tanks didnt one shot everything zerg had, marines werent the highest dps per surface area unit and cost effective unit in the game, stim marauders didnt drop spawning pools in 3 seconds, vikings werent the longest ranged air unit in the game (not to mention they can just land if need be), planetary fortresses didnt nullify the need to ever defend an expo, and, well, i dont mind turrets or mules or repair.
I kid I kid btw. I personally don't feel like marines are "imba", I just feel like I wasted 20$ on GSL to watch 2 rax scv all-ins every damn game.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
maybe if reapers werent faster than everything zerg had, tanks didnt one shot everything zerg had, marines werent the highest dps per surface area unit and cost effective unit in the game, stim marauders didnt drop spawning pools in 3 seconds, vikings werent the longest ranged air unit in the game (not to mention they can just land if need be), planetary fortresses didnt nullify the need to ever defend an expo, and, well, i dont mind turrets or mules or repair.
I kid I kid btw. I personally don't feel like marines are "imba", I just feel like I wasted 20$ on GSL to watch 2 rax scv all-ins every damn game.
Speedlings were faster than speed reapers, a group of tanks 1 shot ground units anyway, creep to react to harassment like marauders dropping in, mutas kill drop play anyway, mutas > vikings, phoenix' > vikings. PF=Warp in=Creep etcetc.
@Vodtoast, ok maybe there are exceptions to the rules but most are definitely whiners.
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
wat do you mean later in the game?
you think by making maps where terrans cant rush and zerg can get a macro lead every game is the solution?
we're supposed to have a macro lead, our units are significantly less cost-effective, and are designed that way, so we need more of them than you. If we don't get a macro lead very very early, once your orbital command finishes you're way ahead with mules alone. I'm not saying blizzard didn't go a bit overboard on nerfing the harass options, but you're being ridiculous.
This must be a joke... Yes zerg units are less cost effective in a head to head battle. but you can constantly harrass and backstab to keep the terran at a further disadvantage. And zerg T3 are definatly more cost effective than terran T3... have you seen how shit BCs are?
Also zerg players does whine a lot. Everytime they lose they find reason for balance.
Honestly all ins arent that hard to stop. After you expand just stop pumping drones none stop. Get a lot of sling and drop down a baneling nest whine also making drones. You wont get behind. Just not ahead like most zergs are used too. So greedy
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
maybe if reapers werent faster than everything zerg had, tanks didnt one shot everything zerg had, marines werent the highest dps per surface area unit and cost effective unit in the game, stim marauders didnt drop spawning pools in 3 seconds, vikings werent the longest ranged air unit in the game (not to mention they can just land if need be), planetary fortresses didnt nullify the need to ever defend an expo, and, well, i dont mind turrets or mules or repair.
I kid I kid btw. I personally don't feel like marines are "imba", I just feel like I wasted 20$ on GSL to watch 2 rax scv all-ins every damn game.
Speedlings were faster than speed reapers, a group of tanks 1 shot ground units anyway, creep to react to harassment like marauders dropping in, mutas kill drop play anyway, mutas > vikings, phoenix' > vikings. PF=Warp in=Creep etcetc.
@Vodtoast, ok maybe there are exceptions to the rules but most are definitely whiners.
Did you miss the part where I said I was joking? And btw, last time I checked mutas and pheonixes have far less range than vikings :p
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
God I hope this is some kind of troll. Your lack of game knowlege can only be rivaled by the uselessnes of your post.
Everything you have mentioned has been agreed by blizzard to be imbalanced and patched accordingly, save for this example of Terran all in. Which I have a feeling may very well be nerfed in some regard soon.
Not only that, this issue has nothing to do with "good strategy". Getting to the ro16 in GSL with the same strat, despite everyone knowing it was coming is laughable. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the difference between strategy and imbalance before you continue to post. In fact I more or less summarized that exact theory a page or two back.
If you feel the power of the Terran all in is balanced, then by all means defend it with logic and reasoning. Not ramble and drool as quoted above.
On December 12 2010 00:10 Baarn wrote: Terran wouldn't all in if there was effective harassment tools to slow the zerg but those got nerfed. So it's rine+scv rush now until that changes.
You think buffing Terran's harassment options later in the game will solve this problem? lol...
wat do you mean later in the game?
you think by making maps where terrans cant rush and zerg can get a macro lead every game is the solution?
we're supposed to have a macro lead, our units are significantly less cost-effective, and are designed that way, so we need more of them than you. If we don't get a macro lead very very early, once your orbital command finishes you're way ahead with mules alone. I'm not saying blizzard didn't go a bit overboard on nerfing the harass options, but you're being ridiculous.
This must be a joke... Yes zerg units are less cost effective in a head to head battle. but you can constantly harrass and backstab to keep the terran at a further disadvantage. And zerg T3 are definatly more cost effective than terran T3... have you seen how shit BCs are?
Also zerg players does whine a lot. Everytime they lose they find reason for balance.
Honestly all ins arent that hard to stop. After you expand just stop pumping drones none stop. Get a lot of sling and drop down a baneling nest whine also making drones. You wont get behind. Just not ahead like most zergs are used too. So greedy
I completely agree with you. For some reason the Zerg players feel like they should have an easy ticket to win the game. It's as if they can't think for themselves and would rather Blizzard fix the game for them to A-move to victory, actually, this is literally the case. The problem with the TvZ matchup is with the player base. A majority of the Zerg players feel some type of entitlement to winning the game by crying to Blizzard every single time they can't beat a strategy. Zerg cried so much that Terran players were nerfed so far to extinction that they actually had to adapt to the 14 hatch by doing 2 rax SCV all in rush. The game is now literally broken for Terran players who want to compete with both Toss and Zerg players during the late game.
Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch.
edit: nevermind I didn't come here for an argument lol. I stand by my belief that while not necessarily "imba", if this continues to be the standard tvz opener it should be patched on account of games being retarded and boring and not worth paying GSL to see over and over again.
On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote: ... A majority of the Zerg players feel some type of entitlement to winning the game by crying to Blizzard every single time they can't beat a strategy. ...
And if there was a strategy that Terran could not beat, they would just be fine with it? I'm not talking late game unit compostions that terran have trouble with, but a single attack in the first, what, 6-7 minutes of the game that required far greater skill and not a small amount of luck to fend off, they'd be ok with that?
On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote: Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch.
I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898
Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it)
people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg.
Also regarding the GSL, I agree that it was very frustrating to see so many all-ins. I understand that the players are trying to win, and I don't blame them for using a style that wins. But this surge of all ins has left a rather bad taste in my mouth whenever I watch a TvZ from the GSL (aside for Jinro's play).
I personally think timing pushes off one base (most of the time all-ins) are quite harder to do than just turtling up and building 2-4 bases and then having one giant battle... besides all-ins have to have really good execution. And all-ins are a part of every strategy and will continue to be! .
i don't mean to start any argument here... all i want to express is my opinion. i am an average diamond player, terran, 2k and i have to agree with people that complained about the QQing zergs
against zerg i have an incredible hard time during the late game due to the constant tech switch they are able to make, basically once the zergs hit tier3 and get up 3+ bases it becomes extremely hard to deal with them... my highest win ratio is actually against zerg rather than T or P, and i don't "all-in" bringing my SCVs but i tend to set a plan that ends the game within the 15/20 mins mark. i always open 2 rax, force em into lings, possibly get his hatch deleted/destroyed or make him open roach. at that point i expand and then hit with a strong timing push off 2 bases while the zerg has been re-droning. i feel doing this is the only "safe" way i have to win against zerg because LOTS of time when i went into macro mode, their constant tech switch, crazy mobility (nydus, creep, mutas, etc.) made it too hard to deal with and an heavy mech army is just too expensive and risky to have... if you loose it, you are fucked. all i am saying is that i can macro game against T and P but against Z is just too insane... and that is why maybe you see so many all ins and sick timing pushes against zerg.... because lots of T players feel the same. my 2 cents
On December 12 2010 12:40 ShyRamen wrote: i don't mean to start any argument here... all i want to express is my opinion. i am an average diamond player, terran, 2k and i have to agree with people that complained about the QQing zergs
against zerg i have an incredible hard time during the late game due to the constant tech switch they are able to make, basically once the zergs hit tier3 and get up 3+ bases it becomes extremely hard to deal with them... my highest win ratio is actually against zerg rather than T or P, and i don't "all-in" bringing my SCVs but i tend to set a plan that ends the game within the 15/20 mins mark. i always open 2 rax, force em into lings, possibly get his hatch deleted/destroyed or make him open roach. at that point i expand and then hit with a strong timing push off 2 bases while the zerg has been re-droning. i feel doing this is the only "safe" way i have to win against zerg because LOTS of time when i went into macro mode, their constant tech switch, crazy mobility (nydus, creep, mutas, etc.) made it too hard to deal with and an heavy mech army is just too expensive and risky to have... if you loose it, you are fucked. all i am saying is that i can macro game against T and P but against Z is just too insane... and that is why maybe you see so many all ins and sick timing pushes against zerg.... because lots of T players feel the same. my 2 cents
I don't disagree with you. I'll be the first to admit that once I'm on 4 bases with map control and on my way to hive, I'm pretty confident that I'm going to win, but those games are at least fun to play and more importantly fun to watch no matter what the outcome. If blizzard wants to nerf zerg lategame thats fine. I don't blame T's for all-inning every game, I blame blizzard for making that the most viable way to play tvz. It's plain shitty to pay money to watch.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
God I hope this is some kind of troll. Your lack of game knowlege can only be rivaled by the uselessnes of your post.
Everything you have mentioned has been agreed by blizzard to be imbalanced and patched accordingly, save for this example of Terran all in. Which I have a feeling may very well be nerfed in some regard soon.
Not only that, this issue has nothing to do with "good strategy". Getting to the ro16 in GSL with the same strat, despite everyone knowing it was coming is laughable. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the difference between strategy and imbalance before you continue to post. In fact I more or less summarized that exact theory a page or two back.
If you feel the power of the Terran all in is balanced, then by all means defend it with logic and reasoning. Not ramble and drool as quoted above.
I was making a point on what most zerg's sound like EVERY time I read these forums, everything I mentioned gets whined about on a regular basis and if you notice it's probably 3/4 or terran units and structures, which basically means zerg players just like to whine about terran in general so why should anyone listen. I'm not talking about balance at all there you idiot so don't accuse me of knowing nothing when you don't even understand what my post is for.
Before you accuse me of talking garbage, you should look at what you posted. 2 rax is a good strategy because it's strong, so it has everything to do with a good strategy, and it IS a strategy, the only reason you think it's imbalanced is because you suck and can't deal with it.
The strategy can be stopped and did many times in the GSL, so don't talk crap about it being unstoppable which is what your getting at.
Oh yes btw, did you see the guy who 6 pooled his way into GSL? is 6 pool imba as well? LOL.
On December 12 2010 12:40 ShyRamen wrote: i don't mean to start any argument here... all i want to express is my opinion. i am an average diamond player, terran, 2k and i have to agree with people that complained about the QQing zergs
against zerg i have an incredible hard time during the late game due to the constant tech switch they are able to make, basically once the zergs hit tier3 and get up 3+ bases it becomes extremely hard to deal with them... my highest win ratio is actually against zerg rather than T or P, and i don't "all-in" bringing my SCVs but i tend to set a plan that ends the game within the 15/20 mins mark. i always open 2 rax, force em into lings, possibly get his hatch deleted/destroyed or make him open roach. at that point i expand and then hit with a strong timing push off 2 bases while the zerg has been re-droning. i feel doing this is the only "safe" way i have to win against zerg because LOTS of time when i went into macro mode, their constant tech switch, crazy mobility (nydus, creep, mutas, etc.) made it too hard to deal with and an heavy mech army is just too expensive and risky to have... if you loose it, you are fucked. all i am saying is that i can macro game against T and P but against Z is just too insane... and that is why maybe you see so many all ins and sick timing pushes against zerg.... because lots of T players feel the same. my 2 cents
I don't disagree with you. I'll be the first to admit that once I'm on 4 bases with map control and on my way to hive, I'm pretty confident that I'm going to win, but those games are at least fun to play and more importantly fun to watch no matter what the outcome. If blizzard wants to nerf zerg lategame thats fine. I don't blame T's for all-inning every game, I blame blizzard for making that the most viable way to play tvz. It's plain shitty to pay money to watch.
SC2 wasn't made for spectators, or because it's fun to watch, you have to remember that.
On December 12 2010 12:40 ShyRamen wrote: i don't mean to start any argument here... all i want to express is my opinion. i am an average diamond player, terran, 2k and i have to agree with people that complained about the QQing zergs
against zerg i have an incredible hard time during the late game due to the constant tech switch they are able to make, basically once the zergs hit tier3 and get up 3+ bases it becomes extremely hard to deal with them... my highest win ratio is actually against zerg rather than T or P, and i don't "all-in" bringing my SCVs but i tend to set a plan that ends the game within the 15/20 mins mark. i always open 2 rax, force em into lings, possibly get his hatch deleted/destroyed or make him open roach. at that point i expand and then hit with a strong timing push off 2 bases while the zerg has been re-droning. i feel doing this is the only "safe" way i have to win against zerg because LOTS of time when i went into macro mode, their constant tech switch, crazy mobility (nydus, creep, mutas, etc.) made it too hard to deal with and an heavy mech army is just too expensive and risky to have... if you loose it, you are fucked. all i am saying is that i can macro game against T and P but against Z is just too insane... and that is why maybe you see so many all ins and sick timing pushes against zerg.... because lots of T players feel the same. my 2 cents
I don't disagree with you. I'll be the first to admit that once I'm on 4 bases with map control and on my way to hive, I'm pretty confident that I'm going to win, but those games are at least fun to play and more importantly fun to watch no matter what the outcome. If blizzard wants to nerf zerg lategame thats fine. I don't blame T's for all-inning every game, I blame blizzard for making that the most viable way to play tvz. It's plain shitty to pay money to watch.
SC2 wasn't made for spectators, or because it's fun to watch, you have to remember that.
sc2 wasn't made to be marines and scv's vs zerglings and drones, otherwise why would they have added all those other useless units.
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd.
It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game.
I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments.
IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps.
I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same.
maybe if reapers werent faster than everything zerg had, tanks didnt one shot everything zerg had, marines werent the highest dps per surface area unit and cost effective unit in the game, stim marauders didnt drop spawning pools in 3 seconds, vikings werent the longest ranged air unit in the game (not to mention they can just land if need be), planetary fortresses didnt nullify the need to ever defend an expo, and, well, i dont mind turrets or mules or repair.
I kid I kid btw. I personally don't feel like marines are "imba", I just feel like I wasted 20$ on GSL to watch 2 rax scv all-ins every damn game.
Speedlings were faster than speed reapers, a group of tanks 1 shot ground units anyway, creep to react to harassment like marauders dropping in, mutas kill drop play anyway, mutas > vikings, phoenix' > vikings. PF=Warp in=Creep etcetc.
@Vodtoast, ok maybe there are exceptions to the rules but most are definitely whiners.
Did you miss the part where I said I was joking? And btw, last time I checked mutas and pheonixes have far less range than vikings :p
I was actually about to write the same thing, then i read the end of your post XD
On December 12 2010 13:11 Cephei wrote: The strategy can be stopped and did many times in the GSL, so don't talk crap about it being unstoppable which is what your getting at.
It's too early to tell IMO, but if it does turn out that the strategy has even a 50% chance of success, I think something has to be done about it, or we'll see most TvZ games becoming all-ins.
Whether that means buffing Terran late-game, nerfing Zerg late-game, or whatever, something ought to be done.
Oh yes btw, did you see the guy who 6 pooled his way into GSL? is 6 pool imba as well? LOL.
If it becomes a staple part of any ZvsX matchup, then yes, it ought to be nerfed.
On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote: Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch.
I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898
Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it)
people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg.
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. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes.
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 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote: Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch.
I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898
Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it)
people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg.
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. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes.
I can't touch on the builds you suggested because they show a complete lack of experience with Zerg or defending a 2 rax. What I can talk about though is what you call zerg players' "feeling of entitlement" to get an early expansion. The zerg race can not keep up equal production on one hatchery to that of a Terran on one base. Like Ret pointed out, there are too few larvae off of one hatch until the first larvae inject finishes, and even then it is an uphill struggle. The zerg NEED an expansion not only for the income advantage, but for the necessity of producing units. A 14 hatch is not the same as a 14 CC or a 14 Nexus functionally or strategically.
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.
I love maining toss and watching the cold war of the Terran/Zerg. Us toss just brotossing it out. On a serious note, the game is completely mechanical. It's not absolutely 100% impossible to stop 2rax.
In-base hatch is a good way to alleviate the problem. I believe fruitdealer showed this in a couple of his games.
July's pool first was also pretty strong. I think early aggression to beat back early Terran aggression is a strong way to play. Kyrix showed that against Foxer, pulling two games off of him in a best of 5, and while Nestea's style in the finals was different, that worked too.
There are multiple ways of stopping or slowing down 2 rax aggression and all in builds, as shown by pros. I think the "best" way comes down to the style of the Zerg, as opposed to the game itself. Nestea was able to hold off all-ins by stalling long enough to get the spine crawler up, while fruitdealer has been able to do it with good drone and ling surrounds, etc etc.
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...
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.
On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote: Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch.
I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898
Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it)
people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg.
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. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes.
I can't touch on the builds you suggested because they show a complete lack of experience with Zerg or defending a 2 rax. What I can talk about though is what you call zerg players' "feeling of entitlement" to get an early expansion. The zerg race can not keep up equal production on one hatchery to that of a Terran on one base. Like Ret pointed out, there are too few larvae off of one hatch until the first larvae inject finishes, and even then it is an uphill struggle. The zerg NEED an expansion not only for the income advantage, but for the necessity of producing units. A 14 hatch is not the same as a 14 CC or a 14 Nexus functionally or strategically.
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.
Here we go again, back to the sense of entitlement. Zerg do not "NEED" to 14 hatch. They can make a spawn pool first because it gives the Zerg player the option of plotting down spine crawlers to help defend against a 2 rax rush.
You also seem to be confused as to what I'm saying. I am not saying for you to make 1 spawn pool and stop playing the game right there. I am saying the safer build to close spawn positions against Terran players is to build a spawn pool first and then you can make you're second hatchery if you do not scout a 2 rax rush. Is that really hard to understand?
Also, talking about what Ret and Irda might or might not have done is like fairy tale land. It's basically complete and utter nonsense to use an assumption as an argument. The only need that I am sensing from you is the need to have Blizzard spoon feed you an automatic win. The reality is that the meta game changed to counter a greedy 14 hatch and so should you.
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.
Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you?
On December 12 2010 15:40 SuperBigFoot wrote: Also, talking about what Ret and Irda might or might not have done is like fairy tale land. It's basically complete and utter nonsense to use an assumption as an argument. The only need that I am sensing from you is the need to have Blizzard spoon feed you an automatic win. The reality is that the meta game changed to counter a greedy 14 hatch and so should you.
So when IdrA and Ret said they tried every build they could think of, in your mind its not reasonable to assume that such an obvious build was not included in that entire WEEK of practice.
But it is rather, reasonable that we should assume they do not know what they are doing, and follow instead your ideas. Which are in fact credited by an entire 33 posts of intense gaming wisdom.
I dont feel it happens all that often, but let me be the first to admit when I'm wrong. There is clearly no arguing with this line of reasoning. You sir have saved my zvt, thank you.
The biggest difference between the pace of SC2 and BW, is larva inject, chrono boosting probes, and mules. These mechanics, which I personally don't like speed up the game. BW is actually very slow, even the fastest all in strats...say a hydra push vs protoss, isn't as fast as your average SC2 rush.
In terms of esports; the future of the entertainment value of SC2 benefits from longer games. If the games are short, then opponents shouldn't die so quickly but at least appear that they have options to survive. Many times in Sc2 it seems that the opponent doesn't stand a chance if he doesn't scout something.
For spectating I think the number of all ins should be reduced. Zerg so far has the least if any, and I believe this difference has made zerg players more focused on what's important...long safe Macro games. Zerg has won both GSL so far.
To the guy above who said put spine crawlers down in the main -There is too much surface area in the main which will make spine crawlers ineffective. -My personal belief is if you think your late game is good sacrifice the economy early and put down 3 spines at the natural after having built them in your main and then proceed doing your normal strategy. At the moment zergs are playing too greedily and they suffer because of it, but the FE is necessary on all maps there is no way around it.
As far as the All-In's are concerned I feel that the changes that have been made by the patches are done too hastily and without cause. The players currently are no where near the ceiling cap for skill level and lose to X strategy because they don't know everything there is to know about Y build order. That even breaks down to how many probes are mining what and the exact number units 2 marines can make a difference. I think that patches should only affect anything that is clearly IMBA and I mean clearly like the 4pool in SC1 before the patch. There is another reason to patch, but they should have been implemented earlier if X unit has no use in a game like carriers or the mothership. Sure they could do well, but the sacrifices you make for them will leave you dead in almost every game against a player of equal skill.
When openings reach a standard level of play then you look at the late games and the final results of XvsY and see if there are imbalances in the late game armies, but until this new game reaches a standard level of play I think blizzard should back off instead of making a patch for every flavor of the week strategy.
Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you?
No, that's not entitlement. That's saying that hatch-first works fends off the rush better than pool-first in a practical sense. There's no entitlement in what I said.
Suggesting a 1base is perfectly sensible... until they bunker up your ramp and prevent you from any kind of early expanding, forcing an inbase hatch anyway (cause you won't be able to use your money). Which means you would have been better off going hatch-first! There is NO advantage in 1basing. There is NO advantage to pool-firsting. It will actually put you in a much weaker position.
This has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Hatch-first is better at fending off the rush.
Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you?
No, that's not entitlement. That's saying that hatch-first works fends off the rush better than pool-first in a practical sense. There's no entitlement in what I said.
Suggesting a 1base is perfectly sensible... until they bunker up your ramp and prevent you from any kind of early expanding, forcing an inbase hatch anyway (cause you won't be able to use your money). Which means you would have been better off going hatch-first! There is NO advantage in 1basing. There is no advantage to pool-firsting.
This has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Hatch-first is better at fending off the rush.
I've heard this school of thought from many people, and its funny because hat first is better for defending and for economy. It might be an intrinsic problem in the design of the two races rather than something that can be tweaked .
I've yet to play the Double-Rax All-In, but have any Zergs tried building their second Hatchery at the top of the ramp, properly placed a Spine Crawler or two, and played accordingly?
I don't think this is a balance issue or Blizzard's fault or that blizzard could do anything to fix this...
All-in strategies are widely used because it is easier and our community's psychological stance on the game...
Also, all-in strategies have the potential to end up not being all-in strategies, that is for example, two opponents go all-in and fail to break the front lines and thus resort to extending their strategy into the macro/mid-game and go from there...
"ALL-IN" is part of the game... just because one player goes "all-in" while playing poker, doesn't mean that he's going to get called to show-down every hand or that he's scv bum rushing... its just another tool in the arsenal.
Its not like my average SC2 games are under 10 minutes long... I don't know what this thread is really bitching about.
I think that the map pool is a good place to start, so many maps are completely terran imba vs zerg ( delta / lt / steppes ) and zerg HAS to allin lol. Also there are other maps that are just BAD for zerg like Jungle basin ( vs T at least, I can't really speak for pvz ). TvP is pretty hard on some maps that are easy for the toss to allin on, and theres some issues that could be adressed, like where protoss can warp into the back of your base on delta quadrant, and thors on a cliff on LT. Some allin's and timing attacks are really strong and its quite frustrating to play vs players that only cheese every game =[.
How did I guess this thread would get hijacked? Am I psychic or just getting used to this forum? Maybe it's like A Beautiful Mind and some people can see a secret message in the OP that says "If we disguise it really well maybe we can sneak a whine thread past the mods - they've been real pills recently".
I'll add my two cents and then get out of the way of all the people who no longer care about the OP.
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote:
Yes, blizzard has a responsibility to make the game enjoyable as a spectator sport and as a game.
It is Blizzard's responsibility because it is not the player's. This game is seared in my memory and serves as a great example:
From the 2 minute mark Psy predicts how the game will pan out and it all happens. I almost lost the will to live.
Blizzard needs to patch to avoid terminal boredom if nothing else.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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...
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.
I think the race balance is pretty good now. Next stop is game length trajectory balancing, which of course could be tough to change without changing race balance. At least ZvZ is much better than SC1 in this regard.
On December 12 2010 17:29 SixtusTheFifth wrote: How did I guess this thread would get hijacked? Am I psychic or just getting used to this forum? Maybe it's like A Beautiful Mind and some people can see a secret message in the OP that says "If we disguise it really well maybe we can sneak a whine thread past the mods - they've been real pills recently".
I'll add my two cents and then get out of the way of all the people who no longer care about the OP.
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...
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.
EDIT: Oh and to reply to the actual topic as well, I really think these all-ins should be less effective. Around 40% win would be acceptable, now a lot weaker player (judging by mechanics and late game performance, where you need to actually make multiple decisions) can win too often just by perfecting one early game strategy. Defending those strategies is a lot harder since different players do them a little bit differently every time (different amount of scv's, different timings, bunkers etc.) -> practicing is not as easy for the defender as it is for the attacker. I've actually paid for this GSL season and I almost hope for a refund, such boring all-in(ish) play all around, not just TvZ. Luckily there was a few epic series there as well tho.
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.
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. :/
if Terran had some decent lategame options we wouldn't have to rely on early pressure vs P and especially Z.
edit: maybe a speed upgrade at that BC building? I'm a T player and I cannot even remember the name of the building lol
edit2: just a quick thought at least, BC's are not an option right now which is sad because they are awesome, but they can be kited to death so easily.
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.
All-in's are a viable and necessary part of the game. How much fun would rock-paper-scissors be if the game became rock-paper?
An all-in early attack is the proper response to a an opponent doing a huge econ build. If you can't defend an early attack, it is because you invested too much in your economy and did not scout your opponent well enough. The attacking workers are necessary because the defender will employ his workers and then the attack would fail, even if you had superior numbers.
Larger maps. Lower income. Lower all damage vs. buildings from all units except workers. Make naturals that lack gas.
IMO: If two players are on equal footing. I.e no one is ahead or behind. Then if I scout someone all-in, I should be able to defend it AND be ahead, due to defenders advantage.
If I do not scout it, get tricked or already am behind then I should have a chance to defend it by superior play due to defenders advantage, I should get behind after this, and ONLY in severe cases should I die.
A game, imo, should be won by gaining small advantages until you can break the opponent. It should not be that you gain one advantage and after that its over.
Defenders advantage in sc2 is simply to weak, especially due to maps being small and bases so hard to defend.
Also there's so many things that can be done that you will have very hard time defending. For some things you need to be able to shoot air, which is harder to do in sc2 (at least for zerg). For other things you need detection, which is harder for all races except terran.
I have nothing against this... except that it's a lot harder to scout and you get more punished by doing the wrong tactic. If sc1 was a Rock papper scissors best of 51, then sc2 is rock papper scissors best of 3.
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.
As Spiffy already argued my point, I won't repeat that as much. But I'm done arguing with you after the third time you've told me of my sense of entitlement after the the third time I've told you it has nothing to do with greed, but actual better defensive options. It makes me think I'm getting trolled.
I think the 2 rax pressure MIGHT be too strong not because of marines or scvs but because of sink/lift supply depots.
the T can do a variety of 2 rax pressure builds(start with 2 rax and go to 4, or expand/tech behind it) all while the other player is in the dark scouting wise. If depots couldnt sink, then after faking pressure or prodding with marine scv, the T would need to lift a rax to get back in, a timing where a scout could slip in.
There is no way of knowing what type of pressure they will express and hence the fear of the allin results in not knowing whats coming. If the Z commits to being extra safe, makes lots of lings from both hatches, the T can simply stop the pressure and sit behind their wallin while their expo finishes and they double produce scv/mule until they can get bunkers up at the nat. Those lings are now useless and the Z is now behind income wise without the T committing to anything. So the Z has to defend with the exact amount of units so they can drone up to NOT be behind in econ. This defense while beautiful when executed properly is easy to mess up.
Without sink/lift depots, if the Z plays it safe and the scv marine pressure is thwarted, the T would either choose to lose their pressuring army or retreat with it and the lings can runby the rax lifting off, scouting the T.
The T leaving their base in the early game I feel should have some form of commitment. If a protoss player 3 gate expands, while poke and prodding with stalker sentry pressure. The Z can overreact, mass speedlings and kill a good portion of that army and apply pressure.
So I would say the only nerf/buff required for the early game is to make sink/lift depot come at a later time in the game. And at the same time, a few buff tweaks to terran late game would benefit as well.
On December 13 2010 02:12 VenerableSpace wrote: I think the 2 rax pressure MIGHT be too strong not because of marines or scvs but because of sink/lift supply depots.
the T can do a variety of 2 rax pressure builds(start with 2 rax and go to 4, or expand/tech behind it) all while the other player is in the dark scouting wise. If depots couldnt sink, then after faking pressure or prodding with marine scv, the T would need to lift a rax to get back in, a timing where a scout could slip in.
There is no way of knowing what type of pressure they will express and hence the fear of the allin results in not knowing whats coming. If the Z commits to being extra safe, makes lots of lings from both hatches, the T can simply stop the pressure and sit behind their wallin while their expo finishes and they double produce scv/mule until they can get bunkers up at the nat. Those lings are now useless and the Z is now behind income wise without the T committing to anything. So the Z has to defend with the exact amount of units so they can drone up to NOT be behind in econ. This defense while beautiful when executed properly is easy to mess up.
Without sink/lift depots, if the Z plays it safe and the scv marine pressure is thwarted, the T would either choose to lose their pressuring army or retreat with it and the lings can runby the rax lifting off, scouting the T.
The T leaving their base in the early game I feel should have some form of commitment. If a protoss player 3 gate expands, while poke and prodding with stalker sentry pressure. The Z can overreact, mass speedlings and kill a good portion of that army and apply pressure.
So I would say the only nerf/buff required for the early game is to make sink/lift depot come at a later time in the game. And at the same time, a few buff tweaks to terran late game would benefit as well.
uh... Terrans have been using the rax as the door for 10 years now, I don't think it's going to be a problem.
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
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...
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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
just wait and see
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DnMpP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6255/allinf.jpg)
