|
zergs are treating big maps as an excuse to be as greedy as possible but really they should be treating them as opportunities to be as safe as possible.
on small maps zerg can do tons of things to scout and can therefore prepare for the one thing that the opponent is meaning to throw at them, on the huge maps, zerg scouting is terrible and the lower value of the xel naga towers is punishing the typical lazy idle zergling scouting that most people are used to on metal and XN caverns. these are the unrealized disadvantages to a large map, whereas the benefits are obvious, longer rush distance, more time to prepare for an attack, typical cheese timings are that much longer, everyone knows about this.
well take that information imbalance and couple it with most of sc2 zergs never being able to expand without grief and you get the most insanely greedy/aggressive corner cutting zerg play i've ever seen in my life.
basically on those maps yes, you need to fast expand, but you also need 2 spines 3 queen and a SPORE CRAWLER yes SPORE CRAWLER in between those spines. that is of course the bare minimum but really guys what do you expect your opponent to do if you make an aggressive econ move like hatch first? you utilized a map advantage to get a stronger econ, if you also had perfect scouting then there is literally no way you can lose, this is balanced by having to prepare for dozens of different types of harassment plays or rushes that can straight end the game if they are effective. when i nexus first, which admittedly is more ec. aggressive than a hatch first, i build 10+ cannons, they might not go cloak banshee or 3 rax, they might counter expand or double expand, but there's no way for me to know their exact response based on limited information.
playing starcraft is hard and yes playing zerg is probably even harder, but seriously this thread is basically "why can't i fast expand for free AND get a perfect scout in all my games on these maps?'
also protip: if you lay down a hatch first AFTER their scout has arrived and don't KNOW they're cross map, you're making a huge mistake - why do people keep doing it? theres a reason everyone 0:50 scouts zerg 90% of the time.
|
On April 04 2011 16:15 xbankx wrote:
I seen creative scouts (using ling+drone) by zergs as ling take hits(since its higher attack target) drone can go in base and scout.
Scouting goes both ways, as soon as soon as the first 4 lings comes out. I get pretty much no scouting down until my obs or hallucination is finished. Playing partially blind and reacting to game is part of the game.
but, isn't it an "unfair" part of the game when the time you aren't scouting leaves the zerg to get a couple extra drones, while the time zerg doesn't scout you could be making something that kills him. the threat doesn't go both ways because of FFing ramps, so, it isn't a big deal to not scout the zerg at that point. he either is droning hard and making a guess as to what you are doing, or is making too many attack units that will be useless.
Sound fair?
|
On April 04 2011 16:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
and yes it's a guessing game but if there's 100% chance a zerg can find out then zerg would win every game right?
Actually, you can see a forge FE, then a 6gate pressure and a third being put, without any deviation whatsoever, and being stomped by the lolball. At pro level, it's kind of like Z players know what it's going on, but it still don't guarantee them a win.
Also, I really would like to hear the pros opinion on matchups, but not from the Z ones. At my nooby level, the best ideas I had to force the decision against T or P player was found by either watching games of the other race, or asking my friends what they feared and why.
|
On April 04 2011 16:39 5unrise wrote:
....I think while it's unfortunate that a large part of this game is based on strategy as opposed to mechanic, which creates an element of luck, it is a random element that you can't really eliminate.....
Am I the only one who thinks that this statement is as horrible wrong as it gets? An ideal real time strategy game would not require any mechanics but the games would be decided by your strategy, your decisions and your quick thinking. I realize, that the balancing would be harder, but just imagine a game where your creativity, decisiveness, strategical thinking and tactical instinct would be the deciding factor.
If you think you need more mechanics, base mining speed of how fast you can tap a certain rhythm with your feet while playing...
|
On April 04 2011 19:04 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 16:39 5unrise wrote:
....I think while it's unfortunate that a large part of this game is based on strategy as opposed to mechanic, which creates an element of luck, it is a random element that you can't really eliminate..... Am I the only one who thinks that this statement is as horrible wrong as it gets? An ideal real time strategy game would not require any mechanics but the games would be decided by your strategy, your decisions and your quick thinking. I realize, that the balancing would be harder, but just imagine a game where your creativity, decisiveness, strategical thinking and tactical instinct would be the deciding factor. If you think you need more mechanics, base mining speed of how fast you can tap a certain rhythm with your feet while playing...
well okay, let me rephrase that: It is unfortunate that the error of choosing the wrong strategy is much more difficult to remedy with superior mechanics in this game. Happy?
No an ideal real time strategy is just as much about mechanics as it is about strategy, otherwise you should go play a turn-based strategy game.
|
On April 04 2011 18:41 carbon_based wrote:
zergs are treating big maps as an excuse to be as greedy as possible but really they should be treating them as opportunities to be as safe as possible.
This should be set in stone.
Anyway. For some reason, Zergs want to have every aspect to be inclined of the game for their favor. Every one of you agrees that big maps do give you a significant advantage, so its only natural that they also give you a disatvantage. It seems to me that everything that denies the Zerg infinite drone greediness "unfair". Its just a well hidden balance cry and last time I checked this was discouraged here.
I think that sharing ideas about how to scout or how to react to the limited information I have is totally nice and fruitfull. So why do you always have to make a cry thread?
|
On April 04 2011 19:14 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 18:41 carbon_based wrote:
zergs are treating big maps as an excuse to be as greedy as possible but really they should be treating them as opportunities to be as safe as possible.
This should be set in stone. Anyway. For some reason, Zergs want to have every aspect to be inclined of the game for their favor. Every one of you agrees that big maps do give you a significant advantage, so its only natural that they also give you a disatvantage. It seems to me that everything that denies the Zerg infinite drone greediness "unfair". Its just a well hidden balance cry and last time I checked this was discouraged here. I think that sharing ideas about how to scout or how to react to the limited information I have is totally nice and fruitfull. So why do you always have to make a cry thread?
Please don't turn this into a flame thread.
|
On April 04 2011 19:09 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 19:04 Thrombozyt wrote:On April 04 2011 16:39 5unrise wrote:
....I think while it's unfortunate that a large part of this game is based on strategy as opposed to mechanic, which creates an element of luck, it is a random element that you can't really eliminate..... Am I the only one who thinks that this statement is as horrible wrong as it gets? An ideal real time strategy game would not require any mechanics but the games would be decided by your strategy, your decisions and your quick thinking. I realize, that the balancing would be harder, but just imagine a game where your creativity, decisiveness, strategical thinking and tactical instinct would be the deciding factor. If you think you need more mechanics, base mining speed of how fast you can tap a certain rhythm with your feet while playing... well okay, let me rephrase that: It is unfortunate that the error of choosing the wrong strategy is much more difficult to remedy with superior mechanics in this game. Happy? No an ideal real time strategy is just as much about mechanics as it is about strategy, otherwise you should go play a turn-based strategy game.
Actually I'm not happy. It's a strategy game after all. If you pick an inferior strategy, you should turn it around by using tactical advantages. Being able to make bad decisions and win because you can click faster and more consistently isn't ideal.
And a turn-based game would give you unlimited time to think your strategy over and changes how tactical advantages work. RTS would still be about seizing the moment - just with the better decisions opposed to the faster mouse.
|
I kinda wonder why overseers need Lair to be made I mean it would help alot if they didnt and it would still be quiet the investment early to put 100 gas into an overseer.
|
On April 04 2011 19:24 Igaryu85 wrote:
I kinda wonder why overseers need Lair to be made I mean it would help alot if they didnt and it would still be quiet the investment early to put 100 gas into an overseer.
Contaminate that early in the game would be overpowered.
|
On April 04 2011 19:21 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 19:09 5unrise wrote:On April 04 2011 19:04 Thrombozyt wrote:On April 04 2011 16:39 5unrise wrote:
....I think while it's unfortunate that a large part of this game is based on strategy as opposed to mechanic, which creates an element of luck, it is a random element that you can't really eliminate..... Am I the only one who thinks that this statement is as horrible wrong as it gets? An ideal real time strategy game would not require any mechanics but the games would be decided by your strategy, your decisions and your quick thinking. I realize, that the balancing would be harder, but just imagine a game where your creativity, decisiveness, strategical thinking and tactical instinct would be the deciding factor. If you think you need more mechanics, base mining speed of how fast you can tap a certain rhythm with your feet while playing... well okay, let me rephrase that: It is unfortunate that the error of choosing the wrong strategy is much more difficult to remedy with superior mechanics in this game. Happy? No an ideal real time strategy is just as much about mechanics as it is about strategy, otherwise you should go play a turn-based strategy game. Actually I'm not happy. It's a strategy game after all. If you pick an inferior strategy, you should turn it around by using tactical advantages. Being able to make bad decisions and win because you can click faster and more consistently isn't ideal. And a turn-based game would give you unlimited time to think your strategy over and changes how tactical advantages work. RTS would still be about seizing the moment - just with the better decisions opposed to the faster mouse.
Mechanics =/= clicking faster, it's about what you click, where you click, game sense, knowing your build order, and clicking with coordination. It is generally what separates pros from people who mainly watches the game, know the strategies, and who simply don't practise enough to execute them well. By your logic, a random silver player who is mechanically awful yet understands high level play would be able to triumph over the likes of IdrA and Dimaga in a world where only pure strategy matters. He obviously plays less, devote less time (strategy is much easier to know than mastering mechanics), and has less game sense, yet you think he should deserve to win just as much?
|
I also have this same problem but this is just how Zerg has been since the beta, if somebody wants to deny scouting or hide buildings size of the map won't make a difference. Just put importance on drone scouting early and write down some conclusions you find that are like x% of players go this strategy when they have this much chronoboost and a second gas +/- stalker second etc.
The other option is to play as an aggressor (Kyrix style or LosirA style ZvT and sling/bane ZvP) to let you get control of the game and force opponent to react to you
When in doubt throw down an evo chamber and one spore at each base and it should (hopefully) tide you over.
|
Personally I gave up on really getting much info from overlord scouting a long time ago, so I don't feel the big maps matter greatly in that regard, but you do feel a lot more blind before overlord speed on large maps I admit.
For me this element isnt a huge problem. I'm low/mid masters, and I feel that it isnt too bad to scout at my level. In ZvP I can guess correct 4/5 times and if Im wrong I can still manage almost half the time... There are certain drawbacks though, f ex that if I meet 1base blink stalkers I will 99% certainly have a spore in my mineral lines EVERY single time which of course sets me back, simply because stargate opening and dt openings look so similar and are much more common.
In zvt, roach/ling opening can deal with most stuff. The only thing I consistently lose to is 2port banshee because the ONLY way to prepare for that is by overlord scouting it...
I believe this is worst in A) high masters where people are good enough to know exactly what to do to trick perfectly (damn you MC for making people more aware of the nexus-cancel 4gate -.-),
and B) below diamond where people have such poor execution that even if you know exactly what to scout for, you simply cannot trust that your opponent is good enough to actually do these little subtle things, and you encounter more crazy 1base builds ( f ex colossus off 1 base).
|
On April 04 2011 19:21 Thrombozyt wrote:
Actually I'm not happy. It's a strategy game after all. If you pick an inferior strategy, you should turn it around by using tactical advantages. Being able to make bad decisions and win because you can click faster and more consistently isn't ideal.
And a turn-based game would give you unlimited time to think your strategy over and changes how tactical advantages work. RTS would still be about seizing the moment - just with the better decisions opposed to the faster mouse.
The mechanics part of RTS comes from the Real-time portion of the word. You want less of a mechanical distribution of skill to the successor of the most mechanically demanding game of all time?
And to answer your quote.
You can turn it around using tactical advantages, or using superior micro and macro, just as it was meant to be.
Also, I don't see any problems scouting and using limited information to get safety measures up.
Based on numbers of gases, units coming out, units at his front, his chrono boost, timing of his buildings, people mining the gasses you should know what you can hold and what is worrying to you, and change your build accordingly.
|
terrans also take precautions just like a toss does when he walls hin, making his main base later on really hard to access by his own units. Terrans of course are perfect at this, and can move their defense posis away or recycle it etc. (and it would be unfair if they couldn't hehe having the weakest starting units.) But their scouting is by far the most expensiv. You can lose 3 overlords if a terran did scan you and you will only notice this in the far late game when minerals run out, where the terran would have had to take atleast 1/2 of the minerals of your bases, to keep up hehe.
Also while a zerg may have it harder to defend early aggression, if they do so they punish this hard, as there is no retreat for the opponent if he didn't wiped out the whole zerg army.
Also zerg just like the terra can completly recicle his defenses. Get some fast queens and spines nothing on ground that is not t2+ can break this and you are save from air also you can move the spines and you need the queens anyway.
Here is my ranking of scouting after the worker died. Lifted barracks > overlord > scan > toss (they have kinda nothing at the timing unless they go hallu before warp tech, but they don't need it anyway, so they are fine.)
For some time i went fast t2 for an overseer ^^ and let him burp on high tech or reactored building to even my investment out. Later on when I became a bit faster i could simply scout with my lings and see any aggression before. Still got an overseer anyway you have 4 free scouts every now and then. And if your opponent doesn't notice them they are like 5 scans in a row
|
Get overlord speed, Lair tech is not hard to get to and if you're build orders are fleshed out you can get Overlord speed by 6-7 minute mark.
If you're too much of a cheap ass to get Overlord speed get a Overseer, but tbh, you're better off getting overlord speed.
|
What kind of scouting does Protoss have that Z doesn't? Before T2 all we have is the option to research hallu, which finishes researching around the time t2 is achieved anyway (significantly reducing our ability to defend a push on our expo, esp if we're going 3 gate expo) and probe scouting.
Terrans scan is good but sacrifices a mule and then they can't scout until T2 as well... Having vie speed at t1 would be retiredly overpowered. Z would always know everything about the enemy on big maps too.
Seriously, what are we complaining about here? Seems to me you zerg players want to have the cake and eat it too...
Edit: Not to mention that a good z will keep their scout drone in the toss' base forever. Not being able to deny early scouting is a bitch. Meanwhile Toss is left blind for awhile thanks to lings/marines destroying probes so early on.
|
On April 04 2011 19:52 Ethic wrote:
Get overlord speed, Lair tech is not hard to get to and if you're build orders are fleshed out you can get Overlord speed by 6-7 minute mark.
If you're too much of a cheap ass to get Overlord speed get a Overseer, but tbh, you're better off getting overlord speed.
The 6-7 minute mark is far too late to be prepared for the things that take zerg by surprise (in fact, it's after you've already been attacked and lost the game for many builds), and you don't even know what time overlord speed usually finishes. Please don't comment if you have no idea what you're talking about.
On April 04 2011 20:07 Protein wrote:
What kind of scouting does Protoss have that Z doesn't? Before T2 all we have is the option to research hallu, which finishes researching around the time t2 is achieved anyway (significantly reducing our ability to defend a push on our expo, esp if we're going 3 gate expo) and probe scouting.
Terrans scan is good but sacrifices a mule and then they can't scout until T2 as well...
Seriously, what are we complaining about here?
Reading the OP is not hard.
|
On April 04 2011 19:31 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 19:21 Thrombozyt wrote:On April 04 2011 19:09 5unrise wrote:On April 04 2011 19:04 Thrombozyt wrote:On April 04 2011 16:39 5unrise wrote:
....I think while it's unfortunate that a large part of this game is based on strategy as opposed to mechanic, which creates an element of luck, it is a random element that you can't really eliminate..... Am I the only one who thinks that this statement is as horrible wrong as it gets? An ideal real time strategy game would not require any mechanics but the games would be decided by your strategy, your decisions and your quick thinking. I realize, that the balancing would be harder, but just imagine a game where your creativity, decisiveness, strategical thinking and tactical instinct would be the deciding factor. If you think you need more mechanics, base mining speed of how fast you can tap a certain rhythm with your feet while playing... well okay, let me rephrase that: It is unfortunate that the error of choosing the wrong strategy is much more difficult to remedy with superior mechanics in this game. Happy? No an ideal real time strategy is just as much about mechanics as it is about strategy, otherwise you should go play a turn-based strategy game. Actually I'm not happy. It's a strategy game after all. If you pick an inferior strategy, you should turn it around by using tactical advantages. Being able to make bad decisions and win because you can click faster and more consistently isn't ideal. And a turn-based game would give you unlimited time to think your strategy over and changes how tactical advantages work. RTS would still be about seizing the moment - just with the better decisions opposed to the faster mouse. Mechanics =/= clicking faster, it's about what you click, where you click, game sense, knowing your build order, and clicking with coordination. It is generally what separates pros from people who mainly watches the game, know the strategies, and who simply don't practise enough to execute them well. By your logic, a random silver player who is mechanically awful yet understands high level play would be able to triumph over the likes of IdrA and Dimaga in a world where only pure strategy matters. He obviously plays less, devote less time (strategy is much easier to know than mastering mechanics), and has less game sense, yet you think he should deserve to win just as much?
I don't want to derail the thread too much, but a random silver player that comes up with a strategy that defeats the strategy of Idra or Dimaga and knows the tactical ins and outs of his strategy (e.g. how to disguise his intentions, what to scout for, how his strategy should react to his opponents strategy) should lose, because - dispite him being extremely creative and one step ahead throughout the game - he cannot click the buttons fast enough and precisely enough? Pro gamers will still have the advantage, because they will have seen more situations, where strategy X fails against strategy Y because of tactical circumstance Z.
I realize, that due to the interface, there are mechanical limits on the player and a player has to train his fingers to push the limits further so he can execute even more demanding strategies correctly or that his units actually react the way he wants them to. But I feel that an RTS game could only benefit, if the game responds to the players will with as little limits as possible and the thought that a game should be mechanically more demanding just to give a non-cerebral option to win despite poorer decisions is a bad idea.
@Dalavita:
The mechanical part comes from the interface not from the real-time part. Real-time would still mean you could miss stuff that's in your vision for only a short time or make poor decisions because your are under too much pressure or surprised. You can make a turn-based game mechanically challenging, too by giving it a poorer interface - but that would obviously be stupid so it's not done.
|
On April 04 2011 19:14 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 18:41 carbon_based wrote:
zergs are treating big maps as an excuse to be as greedy as possible but really they should be treating them as opportunities to be as safe as possible.
This should be set in stone. Anyway. For some reason, Zergs want to have every aspect to be inclined of the game for their favor. Every one of you agrees that big maps do give you a significant advantage, so its only natural that they also give you a disatvantage. It seems to me that everything that denies the Zerg infinite drone greediness "unfair". Its just a well hidden balance cry and last time I checked this was discouraged here. I think that sharing ideas about how to scout or how to react to the limited information I have is totally nice and fruitfull. So why do you always have to make a cry thread?
I agree and I don't agree with you.
First of all, no race should have a certain type of map that they have all the advantages on.
For example this map is large and has a huge middle, so I'm at an advantage at every point in this certain matchup.
But that is a map balance thing, that is more or less still being figured out.
We can still see that mapmakers are experimenting with stuff, but that's a whole other topic.
The problem that I have with the forementioned things is the certain area where it gets harder for zerg.
In my opinion this game should be less off, hey you do X, and I do Y, and there isn't really a way for you to be sure so I just gained a huge advantage by actually doing it, or just the fact that it is a possibility.
And it is just that in the PvZ matchup you are just not allowed to make mistakes, and you have to react perfectly, or you are just gonna be behind or you will die.
I actually strongly advise protoss players to actually play zerg for some games, and actually try to come out ahead in the early to midgame with the limited scouting information you have on these maps.
You either resort to coinflips and get lucky, and be in a good position (and yes there is stuff to keep in mind such as mindgames, things players have done in the past, but on ladder that isn't happening since you are very rarely playing the same player multiple times unless you are in that very top tier part of the ladder).
Or you guess wrong and die, or you try to be safe against all the possibility's that are still open, and you are just doing a build that is just behind no matter what the protoss does.
And I know that I'm gonna get a lot of flak for this, but I actually feel like this is more a combination of 2 factors.
The well known 4gate, and zerg scouting coupled with how the race is played that leads to these situations.
a 4 gate is just such a hard build to beat, at just any level, unless you are 100% preparing for it you are just not gonna hold it.
A lot of people are then saying, well just play safe dude!
Well the problem again is, if you suspect 4 gate, but you don't know for sure yet, and you are starting to prepare for it, and it doesn't come in you are just way to far behind.
And at this stage of the game, I think we can all agree, that if you are behind, no matter what matchup it is, you are gonna have to do some crazy stuff to actually get ahead, how everything pans out, a couple of those advantages quickly snowball out of control into a big game-ending timing push.
And then there are the large amount of other things he could be doing, I'm not gonna go into all the possibility's, because everyone will know them at this point.
Also to add again, there is also a lot of scouting information that can be manipulated by protoss, by doing a slightly less effective build they can basicly trick zerg into thinking a certain build is incoming, and then ride out that advantage by either expanding or doing a certain push.
For example, the 4gate expand build of MC that he did against July.
I had it happen to myself, even in the other way (scouting the 4gate, him faking the 4gate perfectly, moving out at the correct time, and then just expanding, leaving me with a useless army and a economy that is shot).
When a protoss 3 gate expands in a normal way, I'm actually very happy, not because he's planning for a more longer game (usually, the 5/6gate option is still there), but now the MU hasn't gone to these guessing games, and I actually get a chance to scout, react and play on an even footing, and from that point on I actually feel like if I lose, I just got outplayed.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that PvZ is just a unwinnable matchup that is completly broken, far from it, as usual in starcraft2, the game isn't that imbalanced that you might as well leave when certain race X or build shows up like what has happened in other similar rts games.
But I do think that for a competitive game like this, the early game, and the way you go into the midgame can't just be decided by getting lucky, by just doing a certain build, or just doign a coinflip.
And even if that is okay for some of you people here (since some people seem to think that the game should be decided by strategy alone, and I guess games that are decided by a cancelled building or just choosing a certain build is probably fun for them),
The fact is that protoss just had the advantage in this early game, because they are the ones that decide the flow of the game, and they are the ones that actually decide what is gonna happen at that point, so they are actually the ones benefitting from it.
The worst that could happen to them is basicly that the zerg makes a lucky coinflip and they can stay on equal footing or get slightly ahead, or they can hold off the allin.
In the end, I just don't think the game should be decided on the forementioned points, but there should just be more to it then that.
Maybe some people want to believe that they are outplaying their opponent by 4 gating (in one of those situations described above), but I just don't agree.
Also don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that toss should be nerfed to the ground completely, or zerg should get some silly way of scouting every pixel of the map in the early game.
As with ZvT maybe the matchup will just float towards a certain point where these things become less of an issue (ZvT can kinda be this way sometimes, but in the majority of games I would actually say it's one person outplaying the other, or just actually being to greedy, but the biggest offender in this, the reaper build has been nerfed), and maybe the ZvP matchup hasn't had enough time to get to that point yet (since the biggest troubles for ZvP have only arisen in the last couple of weeks).
But the first part of a processs like this, is actually agreeing that there are problems that need to be figured out/fixed, and that is basicly the thing that I am trying to explain, that the matchup has these problems in the early due to factors such as the scouting before lair tech.
But maybe I am wrong, I could be, but if you react to this post, do it in a constructed way, explaining why certain things are wrong, I have tried to put effort into writing up my thoughts, so don't reply with just a "lol imba whine, qq".
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
