|
On December 27 2010 14:05 shynee wrote:
Why cant people understand that during late game, the problem isnt that the terran 200/200 army is weaker than the zerg army. Hell, the terran army might be stronger. The problem is that Zerg and replenish that 200/200 army in 30 seconds while Terran cannot... make it a 200/200 vs 300~400 army. Get it?
And this isnt SC1. We cannot have very large maps for 1v1 in SC2. Imagine the immobility issues for Terran.
I disagree with you and im a terran player If the game gets to where both players are 200/200 Then u have to build enough Barracks where you can keep up with the Zerg larva. On two bases Terran can have up to 10 Barracks or more, on 3rd you can have 15+ Barracks that is enough to replenish back to 200/200 in 1-2 mins you always have to keep using factory and starport to get your supply up.
|
thats interesting and all, but is T really your weakest race? maybe your innately good at T and ZvT is his worst match up
|
I think the OP makes a lot of valid points.
Adding bigger maps will not miraculously solve everything overnight, but I think it would push the evolution of the game in the right direction. Will bigger maps be imbalanced at first? Of course they will, that's the whole point.
Most of the balance changes we have seen so far have been addressing issues within the first 10 minutes of the game. If we start playing on bigger maps and new imbalances are discovered then we can start addressing those issues and creating some real balance, rather than go around in circles arguing about whether Bronze player #1 can hold off Bronze player #2's Zealot rush and whether it needs to be fixed.
The end goal should be to move towards a state of gameplay which is hopefully as exciting and varied as BW. But we're never gonna find out anything if 8/10 games end on 2 bases vs 2 bases before the 15 minute mark =/
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50601 Posts
larger maps will have new strats to counter the old style of all-in/rush/cheese plays because of the rush distances.
for example against protoss...you know that because of the rush distances he would have to make some forward pylons to cut that distance.When you absolutely know that he has to make those pylons its pointless for him to even try doing something like a 4gate rush and instead just 3gate expand.
|
Terran cant match Z production? Partly true, but i could play without queens and just make more hatcheries like in BW, the reason why Z needs to replenish his army faster its because it relies in number BECAUSE ITS FUCKING WEAK. Of course if you keep playing with the same 4 barracks till the 20 minutes mark you are going to get overrun.
Also, its not like Z can just easily trample your bases while you are regrouping, you still have defenders advantage, + PF + Bunker + Siege + Repair + the upgrade on building armor + PDD + Zerg has no Dark Swarm.
Zerg Mobility, First of, if you let Z get the map covered in creep tumors, you suck, as simply as that, Z should only have creep between his bases on late game, and theres a good reason for this: THERE ARE NO SCOURGES, NO DARK SWARM, and NO LURKERS, so zerg needs to be actively taking care of all of his hatcheries. Try sending 1 medivac to each hatchery and see how easy is for zerg to split his forces.
But anyways, i suppose Bunker Rush into Banshee is all there is to ZvT.
|
Sounds like Terran isn't your worst race
|
Zerg won 2 of the GSLs - the maps can't be that bad.
|
|
|
On December 27 2010 17:02 TERRANLOL wrote:
Zerg won 2 of the GSLs - the maps can't be that bad.
That doesn't count. The first two GSLs were won by much better players (who coincidentally played Zerg). There are no Zerg favored maps, only maps on that you can't abuse cliffs or short rush distances and don't get easy wins. But what does count is that the very same two players (FD and NesTea) got beaten by inferior players in the GSL3, who abused those small maps.
|
On December 27 2010 19:34 decaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 17:02 TERRANLOL wrote:
Zerg won 2 of the GSLs - the maps can't be that bad. That doesn't count. The first two GSLs were won by much better players (who coincidentally played Zerg). There are no Zerg favored maps, only maps on that you can't abuse cliffs or short rush distances and don't get easy wins. But what does count is that the very same two players (FD and NesTea) got beaten by inferior players in the GSL3, who abused those small maps.
I just want to point out that FD was the on being insanely all in and cheesy in his play vs hong un. He straight up refused to play macro games against him and instead decided to try and cheesy rushes even though it clearly was NOT working.
|
What has your +1 roach attack example has to do with maps? Or do you think Xel naga is too small lol?
|
I think you need to improve your scouting. I am no pro, but there are certain times when you scout to find out/rule out what the other player is doing and change your play accordingly. Even little things like a ling outside their base, or an overlord over their nearest choke to find out when they are pushing. Try doing these rush/1 base plays yourself and I think you will understand the game better.
Although I can see why you are trying to blame the maps for tour loses, I feel this is really a case of sour grapes. You lost, you were outplayed. Just because someone won by rushing instead of an hour long macro game does not mean they are an inferior player. We play to win and the OP has clearly demonstrated that you are not capable of altering your build for early aggression. Stop complaining and just think how you can improve instead of trying someone else to blame. Yes the maps are smaller than BW, but if they were any bigger, terran would be so underpowered compared to the other races, this would ruin the game. (Protoss have warpgate, zerg have fast units anyway)
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50601 Posts
people who claim that Terran can't beat zerg in a straight up macro game are sorely mistaken.
a 200/200 army can beat at least a wave or two of a typical Zerg 300/300 army with good army placement.And a 5base T is stronger than a 5base Z.
Zerg army is useless when its forced to be split.If a terran tries harassing 2 bases on two opposite ends the main army can easily cut through the middle.
with protoss....proxy pylons become too obvious due to large rush distances.if you scount a 4gate rush then you know that you have to find the proxy pylon since the protoss would never want to walk their entire army across the whole map.
|
Before you harshly criticize my response, I do agree certain builds are too abusive to zerg because of lack of scouting, and will at times result in a unnecessary loss.
If you over commit to an attack, (which your friend brought every drone except 2), you should be punished and shouldnt have the ability to recover. Your friend made a huge mistake and lost 3 minutes later. If he played perfectly, he probably still would of lost but you cant use that replay as a representation of how zerg struggles early game.
If blizzard chooses to increase every map, zerg will have this false sense of security and could abuse their macro mechanics. Blizzard needs to find the balance, and I feel like big maps aren't the answer. The 2 stable metalopolis positions should be the standard of distances for long/short.
|
something people calling for larger maps are missing: army size compared to broodwar is WAY smaller
200 limit is barely enough for these small maps, what are u going to fight with when u are on 5 mining bases as a colossi/thor/ultra using player? there is clumping making armies look, feel and act small and there is the simple fact that units cost way more supply now
it wouldnt be as ridiculous as warcraft 3, with the million expos hand in hand with high upkeep (lol) but if u think bigger maps will solve all problems i believe u are going to find out u are very much mistaken
bigger maps are step1 towards discovering what else is horribly wrong with sc2, such that after religiously watching every gsl game and every "amazing" casted game for months, i hit up a random proleague series and never looked back
|
Good point, taguchi.
I have thought about it and I would indeed like to see more food (maybe 300/300?), but I chose not to post before because people on TL generally do not receive such things well.
|
Toss is benefited the most by large maps because of warp gates allowing them to attack anywhere with zero travel time penalties, while at the same time their opponents cannot attack back without travel time.
|
On December 29 2010 21:21 link0 wrote:
Toss is benefited the most by large maps because of warp gates allowing them to attack anywhere with zero travel time penalties, while at the same time their opponents cannot attack back without travel time.
Yes, but intelligently-placed Xel'Naga towers and general scouting should be able to catch -most- proxy pylons or probes moving out. You cannot be attentive all the time and catch everything every game no matter how good you are, but I think with nice maps (good Xel'Naga towers etc.), the problem won't be as big as people would think.
|
It seems a large portion of the SC2 community hate rushes and prefer to sit back and play the gentlemens game of building up and attacking when ready. If you know you won't be able to win a game that goes for 30mins why not end it in 7mins? Rushing is a valid strategy...
The beauty of an RTS like SC2 is the ability to rush, turtle or do something in between. Admittedly there are at times where a map does feel small, but hey, that is because it is a small map designed for 1v1. If people want a large map to macro on, they should play a large map?
Perhaps if the match making 'map preference' system had a bit more depth (ability to choose large maps for 1v1) then some of these complaints could be nullified.
|
It's not the maps. It's the zerg race. Everyone is dancing around this fact, like it's some sort of shocking revelation. Zerg is bad, broken, fucked, weak, worthless. Everyone knows this, it's been this way for months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
