|
On June 20 2011 01:15 shr0ud wrote:
There is a problem when a zerg 200/200 army can beat terran 200/200 army in a standup fight. Zerg is supposed to have the weakest and the least cost-effective units, which is equalized by the ability to remax unspeakably fast.
As a terran player TvZ just feels like a ticking timebomb which just becomes more unwinnable the longer the game goes on and I really dislike the fact that playing macro is completely unviable option.
sry, but that's just wrong. Zerg is neither supposed to have the weakest, nor the least costefficient army. It is supposed to be balanced around the larva principle.
most zerg compositions won't be good in 200/200 fights because their main units: zerglings, roaches, mutalisks are supplyinefficient, but therefore either extremly easily massable (roaches, zerglings) or extremly universal (mutalisk).
once you talk about hightier expensive units, such as banelings, ultralisks, infestor, broodlord, you simply have to leave the remax-mechanism out of the equation, because you simply cannot remax easily on those. (they are not limited by larva, but by cost, buildtime, and tech!)
if you actually look at any ZvT game, that was won by broodlord/infestor, you will see that zerg is aiming for this composition for a really long time (incorporate infestors, trade low tier units, slowly add broodlords, spinecrawler up at certain locations, keep infestors alive, add more broodlords), so imo, a terran has plenty of time, to hold the immidiate broodlord attacks with vikings, but transition into ghosts or marauder from then on, depending on the zergs behavior. (suciding broodlords-->marauder vs ultras; very conservative style with broodlords-->ghosts)
btw, Protoss can remax faster then terran as well (just thinking about top protoss players, that get up to 25gateways in the lategame, and that can use chronoboost from 4 to 8 nexi additionally), yet a lot of people would argue, that usual 200/200 Protoss deathballs do crush usual Terran 200/200 armies.
deeper (very theoretical) thoughts about a balancing in which a zerg 200/200 can never engage a terran 200/200:
+ Show Spoiler +let's say we are deep in the lategame, both players maxed. someone pushes and ofc terran comes out on top (200 vs 200 rule), then there are 3 possible scenarios (assuming kind of perfect play):
-) terran loses a part of his army and gets overrolled by zerg if he rebuilds the right units. (zerg is OP, because there is noway for terran to win, if zerg plays right)
-) terran loses a part of his army, but the following battles turn the game back into a state of balance (terran is OP on symmetrical maps, because zerg has to invest more into holding pushes, therefore will mine out his side faster)
-) terran crushes the zerg with minimal losses, and therefore cannot be stopped by reinforcements, as they can only be as strong as the former army (terran is OP, as there is no way to beat a terran out of a balanced position)
(notice, this comment should not be an argument, it was just a thought of me, that I wanted to post; it should just state, that a game that is meant to reach "maxsupply" at some point, has to have a "stalemate balance" too, in which neither player can lose, if he doesn't make a mistake)
|
United States22883 Posts
Pretty weak interview imo. Considering Jp represents MLG, there's a lot of short comings in the game that directly damage MLG and none of them were brought up. If anyone were to hold their feet to the fire about the tremendous weaknesses of Bnet 0.2, it could be Jp and MLG and noone would think twice about it.
|
yet a lot of people would argue, that usual 200/200 Protoss deathballs do crush usual Terran 200/200 armies.
Most Terran 200/200 armies aren't deathballs, they're just mass T1 infantry with some tanks and vikings thrown in. Frankly, that type of composition *should* lose to mass Colossi/VR, because mass Colosssi/VR leaves you significantly more vulnerable while teching to it.
However, there are T deathballs that can go toe to toe with and stomp P deathballs--there's a good one here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232753 that uses marines, marauders, blue flame hellions, tanks, a raven, medivacs, vikings and ghosts and it takes Colossi comps to school. Its not easy to tech to (though that thread points out ways to get to it), but thats the entire point of deathballs--the harder they are to tech to, the harder they should be to beat.
|
On June 20 2011 03:19 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +yet a lot of people would argue, that usual 200/200 Protoss deathballs do crush usual Terran 200/200 armies. Most Terran 200/200 armies aren't deathballs, they're just mass T1 infantry with some tanks and vikings thrown in. Frankly, that type of composition *should* lose to mass Colossi/VR, because mass Colosssi/VR leaves you significantly more vulnerable while teching to it. However, there are T deathballs that can go toe to toe with and stomp P deathballs--there's a good one here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232753 that uses marines, marauders, blue flame hellions, tanks, a raven, medivacs, vikings and ghosts and it takes Colossi comps to school. Its not easy to tech to (though that thread points out ways to get to it), but thats the entire point of deathballs--the harder they are to tech to, the harder they should be to beat.
exactly what Im thinking. (that's why I wrote "usual" in front of both P's and T's army)
That's exactly why I do think, that a high tier zerg composition, such as broodlord/infestor should be at least on equal footing with a pretty usual midgame composition (tank/marine/medivac) in which terran added some vikings (which aren't even a new tech, as there will be a reactored starport anyway)
I really do believe that creative players like MVP and NaDa will soon show us ways to deal with it on the highest level of play. (maybe ghosts, maybe vikings, maybe multiple drops, or maybe another solution)
|
Looks like they are far from finishing it....
I'll put my money on July 2013 
Thanks as always JP!
|
On June 19 2011 14:12 Nazeron wrote:
season 3, new maps, hopefully they get rid on slag, dq, backwater and typhon
What about Scrap Station? Personally I think that the map pool should be changed from it's current listing by removing Scrap Station, Slag Pits, Delta Quadrant, and Backwater Gulch. Then they should implement MLG variants of the Blizzard maps like Metalopolis (REMOVE CLOSE SPAWNS NOW) and also on Typhon Peaks both top/both bottom spawns should be removed (Colossi and Tanks are able to harass the natural third base too easily in my opinion, which becomes exceedingly easy to do when both players spawn top or bottom).
Also, I'm still praying that Blizzard adds in more GSL maps like Crevasse, Dual Sight, or Xel'Naga Fortress. Since so many tournaments are using MLG and GSL maps, it only makes sense that the ladder maps reflect these trends in recent tournaments. Laddering obviously isn't as good of a tool for practicing for a tournament that preparing by playing against friends in Custom Games, but at the same time laddering should be a better tool for preparation.
Let's just pray that by "Rush maps" they don't meant that they're implementing Steppes of War again.
|
On June 20 2011 03:08 Jibba wrote:
Pretty weak interview imo. Considering Jp represents MLG, there's a lot of short comings in the game that directly damage MLG and none of them were brought up. If anyone were to hold their feet to the fire about the tremendous weaknesses of Bnet 0.2, it could be Jp and MLG and noone would think twice about it.
Is it Bnet 2.0 that's horrible though or no lan? Problems should be expected with online tournaments and Bnet 2.0 probably can't get much better about that. LAN could fix that. But this has already been said a bajillion times, which is probably why JP didn't talk about it because nothings going to change.
|
On June 17 2011 06:16 On_Slaught wrote:
"The mothership is more geared towards casual players." - David Kim
Holy shit that is a HORRIBLE explanation for why they keep a HORRIBLE unit in competitive play. How about give the terran all the units in the single player too for the bronze and gold league players?
They just told protoss that you get one less viable unit b/c its fun for some players who don't care about winning.
No, it's quite a good explanation which anyone interested in game design should understand.
Players span different psychographical attributes that developers need to take into account. One example is the core reason someone is playing the SC2 multiplayer; some players play to become better at the game (competitors) while others play just to have fun with friends (casuals).
Now, you could go about and make different multiplayers for competitive and casual play. But as players often span across several categories and players with different psychographics sometimes still want to play each other it's usually advantageous to avoid fragmenting of the community if possible.
For Blizzard it is pretty simple to just make competitive units and balance them to cater to competitors. Then they can add as many extravagant "just-for-fun" units as they want as long as they do not affect the game balance. Easiest is to make them objectively genuinely bad but good game designers can sometimes still make them fill small niche roles in competitive play.
You clearly fall into the competitive category of players, but please respect the interest of other types players. The addition of these "fun"-units doesn't even affect your play negatively.
|
On June 20 2011 03:08 Jibba wrote:
Pretty weak interview imo. Considering Jp represents MLG, there's a lot of short comings in the game that directly damage MLG and none of them were brought up. If anyone were to hold their feet to the fire about the tremendous weaknesses of Bnet 0.2, it could be Jp and MLG and noone would think twice about it.
What? Ask about LAN? We all know the answer to that so why waste time.
|
On June 20 2011 09:08 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2011 03:08 Jibba wrote:
Pretty weak interview imo. Considering Jp represents MLG, there's a lot of short comings in the game that directly damage MLG and none of them were brought up. If anyone were to hold their feet to the fire about the tremendous weaknesses of Bnet 0.2, it could be Jp and MLG and noone would think twice about it. What? Ask about LAN? We all know the answer to that so why waste time.
Did Jibba say anything about LAN specifically? I'm pretty sure he's referencing shortcomings in general. There is MUCH more wrong with Bnet2.0 other than LAN support that has been within the grasp of the developers to fix for quite awhile now. Even some of the simplest fixes can relieve a huge headache for players and tournament admins.
Here's a few glaring problems (other than no LAN) that BNet 2.0 has that should be fixable and deserve at least a passing question about.
1) Low Friends list limit. Having to consistently rotate people in and out of your friends list in order to be able to invite them to a game is horrible and inefficient. If you're not an tournament admin/streamer that has had to deal with this yourself, then perhaps you've watched someone have to deal with it. Either way its bad.
2) "Input Limit Reached". This allegedly occurs because when accessing a particular player profile, the system also queries profile info for everyone on your friends list. The larger the list, the easier your input limit gets reached. Terrible implementation
3) Ability to drag people (pro players) into chat rooms without their permission.
4) Ability to spam people (pro players) with invites to games. Even when those players have their status set to busy, the invites pile up in some sort of queue that gets flushed at random times, causing extreme lag to players in mid game. This is why MLG is no longer going to release replays during the tournament, as character information can be parsed from the replay format and used to abuse players during games.
5) More of a UI problem than anything: Lack of a "CLOSE ALL CHAT WINDOWS" button. Probably the biggest oversight I've ever seen. Anyone who has watched any popular streamers such as WhiteRa has seen the clusterfuck that becomes the bottom of the window when up to 60 or more people are talking to him at once.
Watching his game have a grand mal seizure as it tries to index and recall each and every message from each person while he scrolls through them all to find the one person he actually wants to talk to is almost a rage inducing experience. As is watching him close each and every window individually just to get his game to a stable state once again.
These are all symptoms of either cutting corners, rushed work, or just shoddy implementations that can and should be fixed in a simple hotfix patch between the larger balance patches. I'd love to hear some of the reasons behind these issues and when a fix can be expected.
|
1% beat it on brutal ? *cough* cannon rush *cough*
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 20 2011 04:04 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2011 03:08 Jibba wrote:
Pretty weak interview imo. Considering Jp represents MLG, there's a lot of short comings in the game that directly damage MLG and none of them were brought up. If anyone were to hold their feet to the fire about the tremendous weaknesses of Bnet 0.2, it could be Jp and MLG and noone would think twice about it. Is it Bnet 2.0 that's horrible though or no lan? Problems should be expected with online tournaments and Bnet 2.0 probably can't get much better about that. LAN could fix that. But this has already been said a bajillion times, which is probably why JP didn't talk about it because nothings going to change.
There's far more wrong than just lack of LAN. Columbus finals were delayed because of the lag caused by the terrible chat channel/friend implementation.
|
On June 17 2011 18:36 arto wrote:
I liked these interviews JP, unlike a lot of the other HotS interviews you didn't try to manipulate some random tid bits of information. You just let them say what they had to say and did not repeat the same question several times in different ways.
The Ghost V BL/Infestor seems like an issue of production. It seems a lot easier for a Zerg to create these units to just overwhelm the number of ghosts that a Terran can create. Each time a Xerg creates an infestor or Broodlord the Terran needs to dedicate an equal amount of production For every Broodlord spawned it takes up 2 production cycles of a barracks to create enough ghosts to kill a Broodlord (assuming 75 energy on the ghost). And for each infesor it takes pretty much 1 ghost (for sniping purposes emp is obviously better to do in the short term but killing an infestor).
So the problem becomes when the Zerg decides to create 6-8 Broodlords and 4-6 Infestors. To then have ghosts capable of handling this the Terran would need to have 8-10 barrack dedicated to creating ghosts for 80 seconds (84 seconds to create a BL). Rarely does Terran have this many barrack and even less often is it with that many tech labs. The solution would then seem to be for the Terran to produce ghosts before this point (to stockpile energy) but doing that leaves you quite vulnerable to the Zerg staying on muta/ling/bling. Though I imagine that if set timing for broodlords becomes common then this vulnerability could be overcome.
Mmm I might get banned for discussing balance issues but as it seems so many people are doing it I might chip in aswell, note I did only read 16 pages until I decided to post.
Note im a decent player (1600 Masters u can check in my quote BeyondLimits)
The problem with TvZ is basically your working uphill the entire game which in the basic race concept of Zerg and Terran is fine imo, and the BL/Infestor itself is not a big problem to handle with but when the zerg is really good and can catch your Ghosts with fungals and has a backup army of million mutalisks banes and lings no amount of ghosts is sufficient, I managed to deal with this composition by being extremely pathetic and massing planetaries viking thors tanks and ghosts but even then its hard and you lose 80% of the time cuz the zerg wont let you get what I've listed.
Now some of you might say if the zerg has gotten all that its your fault you lost because the game is lost even before those units arrive, that is true if he went infestor first on T2 due to the fact u can exploit dropping on main 3rd at the same time while leading battles, but when he mutas on T2 and then switches into infestor BL its extremely hard.
From a Terran perspective ( as this is a individual opinion take it with a grain of salt ) I think the most optimal nerf is just if the Fungal doesnt reveal cloaked units or doesnt make them stand still and wait to get destroyed by whatever, just a suggestion.
|
On June 17 2011 06:50 dNsIMonTy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:48 simansh wrote:
"All of the matchups are close to 50%, except for 2"
TvZ
PvZ
TvP
So 2 of the three matchups are off? Lmaoo so truuee
Dude Its 6 Matchups....
TvT PvP ZvZ
TvZ PvZ
TvP
|
Their logic for the 1v1 maps is just so bothering to me. If you have a macro map, you can execute a rush strategy, but it needs to be more crisp and well thought out and is less forgiving than that on a rush map. If you play on a rush map though, you more or less take away all other options except a short rush based game. If they want a diversity of games, this methodology is quite counterproductive.
|
On June 21 2011 03:11 TheRPGAddict wrote:
Their logic for the 1v1 maps is just so bothering to me. If you have a macro map, you can execute a rush strategy, but it needs to be more crisp and well thought out and is less forgiving than that on a rush map. If you play on a rush map though, you more or less take away all other options except a short rush based game. If they want a diversity of games, this methodology is quite counterproductive.
I completely agree. The rush map would completely cater to rush strategies, so we would probably experience more rushes on that map. The macro maps would cater to macro style, so we would most likely see macro games there.
Why not just have more macro oriented maps? Rushing would still be possible and it would add some variety and unpredictability to games.
|
On June 21 2011 03:11 TheRPGAddict wrote:
Their logic for the 1v1 maps is just so bothering to me. If you have a macro map, you can execute a rush strategy, but it needs to be more crisp and well thought out and is less forgiving than that on a rush map. If you play on a rush map though, you more or less take away all other options except a short rush based game. If they want a diversity of games, this methodology is quite counterproductive.
Its ok if they try and fail. How else do you come out with a new edge? Besides they can patch it. LULZ!
EDIT:
LEAPING CRACKLINGS!!!! *clap* *clap* Billlly deee billllyy dee!!
|
"Every matchup is perfectly balanced except two"
Anyone else perplexed by this statement, I mean there are only 3 non-mirror matchups.
edit: reading the other comments it seems I'm not the only one that noticed this.
|
On June 17 2011 07:29 JoeSchmoe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 07:12 Demonace34 wrote:On June 17 2011 06:59 crabz wrote:
and the zerg whine begins The whine about the whine is actually getting worse than the whine that starts in the first place. Atleast the zergs who voice their opinion have more than 5 words in their post and try to bring up points. This is just flame-baitng a whole race into hating another race. I don't have enough experience to actually know if it is imbalanced or not, but I do think ghosts might easily solve Terran problem late game. EMP is a must unless you want all your marines to explode with 2 fungals. Ghosts secondary ability snipe could also work wonders on Broodlords. Either way, I can't wait for HOTS and the new season with new maps. I hope some of them are decent. Thanks for the interviews JP. Yes yes theoretically ghosts are good against broodlors, infestors, etc. There's a reason why so many pro terrans don't get ghosts or get enough ghosts vs zerg. You can't just transition into ghosts. Getting ghosts means putting tech labs on your barracks which reduces marine production because you would normally go reactored marines against anything else. Not every zerg goes into late game with infestor/broods. A lot just stick with muta/ling/bane so you can't just mix in ghosts as part of your standard build. I've tried to do this but your ghosts just die because they can't even run away from banelings. Point is, it's not as simple as "just make ghosts". Glad they are looking at this.
You serious !!, you cant tell me a Terran cant build a ghost academe and pump out a couple of ghosts 25 mins into a game? I mean doesn't the tech lab give you combat shield, stim etc which you will certainly have any ways?
I think a lot of Terran players are being lazy with their MMM auto wins. Now they finally have to work for the win its "oh no Zerg and Protoss are OP",
Bomber destroyed MC at Dreamhack by using a couple of ghosts in his army, and i don't see why they cant be used against Zerg
|
Wait what??? they are going to nerf zerg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
