E.g. I think roaches on creep are too fast in general. Speedlings are way too fast. Banelings are too fast. Ultras are too fast.
I disagree here.I think the issue with Roaches are that they are too strong for the cost cost + too supply ineffective. Right now they serve as a midgame map control unit, which creates lame gameplay as enemy just turtles against it. But maintaining the creeprelated defenders advantage for Roaches is extremely important. Otherwise its gonna be a unit your just gonna make a lot of and then kill your opponent and/or zerg is gonna be even more vulnerable to timing attacks.
By reducing cost-efficiency I believe enemy can go out on the map more easily in the midgame, and with creep-spread defenders advantage maintained, the zerg should still be able to survive without "strong" mapcontrol.
Ultras I think should be much faster both off-creep and oncreep, but less splash/armor. The issue with them right now vs terran is that they are way too strong vs bio-play in a straight up engagement, but he can and is forced to infinitely kite which isn't a good interaction. I think much faster Ultras that cannot be kited effectively, but which instead are weaker in a straight up battle will be good for the game.
That's not to say I disagree with your ideas, but what you are proposing is a fullout remake of the unit, while in was just talking about how the current roachspeed interacts with the speed of other units. If we talk about a different roach with a different gameplay dynamic, this does of course open quite other design/balance opportunities.
About the ultralisk, I just don't really like that unit to begin with. It's just tanky with hardly any control possible/necessary on the unit itself. Blizzard had the right idea trying to balancing them around some new ability, but just adding a combat ability on an existing unit is probably pretty hard, unless the unit was very weak to begin with. And in particular the underground charge with units being thrown away from the ultralisk so that it has to close in again was weird, visually and gameplaywise.
My suggestion is a small DPS nerf to the Roach (down from like 16 to 14) while reducing supply from 2 to 1. I wouldn't call that a remaking of the unit. It's rather an acknowledgement that you cannot tweak the Roach in itself to create more interactions (you can do this through burrow movement though). But you can change the gamedynamics of the game by tweaking the Roach in order to promote more battles.
Agreed, you can't just suddenly give roaches a hive upgrade to make them "good in the late game". Even if the upgrade cost 300/300 it would still be terribly OP since roaches are so cheap and easily massed, and if you don't make the upgrade good enough then it'll just be a niche upgrade like burrow movement that few ever gets.
Although I still shudder at the thought of 1 supply roaches... that's probably a route Blizzard should never go back to.
Just give a hive upgrade that make roach need only 1 supply instead of 2 (and maybe hydras too). The time Zerg gets hive + the upgrade, the T/P already has some AOE/immortal/upgraded bio counter so it's not OP anymore.
Aslo zerg could swarm his opponent, constantly reproduicing roach/hydra + vipers and attacking/trading constantly in ZvP for example, rather than being forced to go Swarm host defensive vs protoss late game. And probably much more interesting for protoss trading vs a swarm of roach/hydras/vipers rather than the locusts. The zerg army will cost more, but he will be able to secure more base as he has more units and more mobile than SH.
Aslo, then you can consider reworking SH to prevent lame use without breaking balance.
With the current roach and hydralisk this would be quite broken, assuming the upgrade has any form of "normal costs" (not something like 1000/1000).
E.g. I think roaches on creep are too fast in general. Speedlings are way too fast. Banelings are too fast. Ultras are too fast.
I disagree here.I think the issue with Roaches are that they are too strong for the cost cost + too supply ineffective. Right now they serve as a midgame map control unit, which creates lame gameplay as enemy just turtles against it. But maintaining the creeprelated defenders advantage for Roaches is extremely important. Otherwise its gonna be a unit your just gonna make a lot of and then kill your opponent and/or zerg is gonna be even more vulnerable to timing attacks.
By reducing cost-efficiency I believe enemy can go out on the map more easily in the midgame, and with creep-spread defenders advantage maintained, the zerg should still be able to survive without "strong" mapcontrol.
Ultras I think should be much faster both off-creep and oncreep, but less splash/armor. The issue with them right now vs terran is that they are way too strong vs bio-play in a straight up engagement, but he can and is forced to infinitely kite which isn't a good interaction. I think much faster Ultras that cannot be kited effectively, but which instead are weaker in a straight up battle will be good for the game.
That's not to say I disagree with your ideas, but what you are proposing is a fullout remake of the unit, while in was just talking about how the current roachspeed interacts with the speed of other units. If we talk about a different roach with a different gameplay dynamic, this does of course open quite other design/balance opportunities.
About the ultralisk, I just don't really like that unit to begin with. It's just tanky with hardly any control possible/necessary on the unit itself. Blizzard had the right idea trying to balancing them around some new ability, but just adding a combat ability on an existing unit is probably pretty hard, unless the unit was very weak to begin with. And in particular the underground charge with units being thrown away from the ultralisk so that it has to close in again was weird, visually and gameplaywise.
My suggestion is a small DPS nerf to the Roach (down from like 16 to 14) while reducing supply from 2 to 1. I wouldn't call that a remaking of the unit. It's rather an acknowledgement that you cannot tweak the Roach in itself to create more interactions (you can do this through burrow movement though). But you can change the gamedynamics of the game by tweaking the Roach in order to promote more battles.
Agreed, you can't just suddenly give roaches a hive upgrade to make them "good in the late game". Even if the upgrade cost 300/300 it would still be terribly OP since roaches are so cheap and easily massed, and if you don't make the upgrade good enough then it'll just be a niche upgrade like burrow movement that few ever gets.
Although I still shudder at the thought of 1 supply roaches... that's probably a route Blizzard should never go back to.
Just give a hive upgrade that make roach need only 1 supply instead of 2 (and maybe hydras too). The time Zerg gets hive + the upgrade, the T/P already has some AOE/immortal/upgraded bio counter so it's not OP anymore.
Aslo zerg could swarm his opponent, constantly reproduicing roach/hydra + vipers and attacking/trading constantly in ZvP for example, rather than being forced to go Swarm host defensive vs protoss late game. And probably much more interesting for protoss trading vs a swarm of roach/hydras/vipers rather than the locusts. The zerg army will cost more, but he will be able to secure more base as he has more units and more mobile than SH.
Aslo, then you can consider reworking SH to prevent lame use without breaking balance.
With the current roach and hydralisk this would be quite broken, assuming the upgrade has any form of "normal costs" (not something like 1000/1000).
Maybe just roach, not hydras. I don't think this is OP, colossus/immortal/storm absolutly crush a roach hydras army. Also you must consider a 200/200 army of roach/hydras with 1 supply is twice more expansive than one with 2. 50 roach + 50 hydras =3750min1250gaz + 5000min +2500gaz= 8750min + 3750gaz, and toss can have 15 colossus for only 4500/3000.
Well since everyone is coming up with ridiculously horrible suggestions, I'll throw my own into the pile.
Banshees should have +20 damage to shields (one shot probes). They would still mostly suck in PvT, but at least Terran would have a unit roughly comparable to the oracle in terms of coinflip kill potential. It might help even out the disparity of openers in PvT since I assume banshee cheese will become viable even against photon overcharge.
E.g. I think roaches on creep are too fast in general. Speedlings are way too fast. Banelings are too fast. Ultras are too fast.
I disagree here.I think the issue with Roaches are that they are too strong for the cost cost + too supply ineffective. Right now they serve as a midgame map control unit, which creates lame gameplay as enemy just turtles against it. But maintaining the creeprelated defenders advantage for Roaches is extremely important. Otherwise its gonna be a unit your just gonna make a lot of and then kill your opponent and/or zerg is gonna be even more vulnerable to timing attacks.
By reducing cost-efficiency I believe enemy can go out on the map more easily in the midgame, and with creep-spread defenders advantage maintained, the zerg should still be able to survive without "strong" mapcontrol.
Ultras I think should be much faster both off-creep and oncreep, but less splash/armor. The issue with them right now vs terran is that they are way too strong vs bio-play in a straight up engagement, but he can and is forced to infinitely kite which isn't a good interaction. I think much faster Ultras that cannot be kited effectively, but which instead are weaker in a straight up battle will be good for the game.
That's not to say I disagree with your ideas, but what you are proposing is a fullout remake of the unit, while in was just talking about how the current roachspeed interacts with the speed of other units. If we talk about a different roach with a different gameplay dynamic, this does of course open quite other design/balance opportunities.
About the ultralisk, I just don't really like that unit to begin with. It's just tanky with hardly any control possible/necessary on the unit itself. Blizzard had the right idea trying to balancing them around some new ability, but just adding a combat ability on an existing unit is probably pretty hard, unless the unit was very weak to begin with. And in particular the underground charge with units being thrown away from the ultralisk so that it has to close in again was weird, visually and gameplaywise.
My suggestion is a small DPS nerf to the Roach (down from like 16 to 14) while reducing supply from 2 to 1. I wouldn't call that a remaking of the unit. It's rather an acknowledgement that you cannot tweak the Roach in itself to create more interactions (you can do this through burrow movement though). But you can change the gamedynamics of the game by tweaking the Roach in order to promote more battles.
Agreed, you can't just suddenly give roaches a hive upgrade to make them "good in the late game". Even if the upgrade cost 300/300 it would still be terribly OP since roaches are so cheap and easily massed, and if you don't make the upgrade good enough then it'll just be a niche upgrade like burrow movement that few ever gets.
Although I still shudder at the thought of 1 supply roaches... that's probably a route Blizzard should never go back to.
Just give a hive upgrade that make roach need only 1 supply instead of 2 (and maybe hydras too). The time Zerg gets hive + the upgrade, the T/P already has some AOE/immortal/upgraded bio counter so it's not OP anymore.
Aslo zerg could swarm his opponent, constantly reproduicing roach/hydra + vipers and attacking/trading constantly in ZvP for example, rather than being forced to go Swarm host defensive vs protoss late game. And probably much more interesting for protoss trading vs a swarm of roach/hydras/vipers rather than the locusts. The zerg army will cost more, but he will be able to secure more base as he has more units and more mobile than SH.
Aslo, then you can consider reworking SH to prevent lame use without breaking balance.
With the current roach and hydralisk this would be quite broken, assuming the upgrade has any form of "normal costs" (not something like 1000/1000).
Maybe just roach, not hydras. I don't think this is OP, colossus/immortal/storm absolutly crush a roach hydras army. Also you must consider a 200/200 army of roach/hydras with 1 supply is twice more expansive than one with 2. 50 roach + 50 hydras =3750min1250gaz + 5000min +2500gaz= 8750min + 3750gaz, and toss can have 15 colossus for only 4500/3000.
1 supply roach and hydra would destroy zvt. Bad suggestion unless it involves heavy nerfs to these units too. A weaker but 1 supply roach / hydra would fit with the swarminess of zerg, but would make it even worse against aoe attacks, and unless unit costs are also changed, could be a nerf for certain timings.
On August 07 2014 02:44 Haukinger wrote: Why not make Hive increase supply cap, say, 50 for each Hive?
Units are partly balanced around supply costs. Supply max should be a fixed value. It also means zerg would just turtle and get infinity supply cap before ever attacking.
E.g. I think roaches on creep are too fast in general. Speedlings are way too fast. Banelings are too fast. Ultras are too fast.
I disagree here.I think the issue with Roaches are that they are too strong for the cost cost + too supply ineffective. Right now they serve as a midgame map control unit, which creates lame gameplay as enemy just turtles against it. But maintaining the creeprelated defenders advantage for Roaches is extremely important. Otherwise its gonna be a unit your just gonna make a lot of and then kill your opponent and/or zerg is gonna be even more vulnerable to timing attacks.
By reducing cost-efficiency I believe enemy can go out on the map more easily in the midgame, and with creep-spread defenders advantage maintained, the zerg should still be able to survive without "strong" mapcontrol.
Ultras I think should be much faster both off-creep and oncreep, but less splash/armor. The issue with them right now vs terran is that they are way too strong vs bio-play in a straight up engagement, but he can and is forced to infinitely kite which isn't a good interaction. I think much faster Ultras that cannot be kited effectively, but which instead are weaker in a straight up battle will be good for the game.
That's not to say I disagree with your ideas, but what you are proposing is a fullout remake of the unit, while in was just talking about how the current roachspeed interacts with the speed of other units. If we talk about a different roach with a different gameplay dynamic, this does of course open quite other design/balance opportunities.
About the ultralisk, I just don't really like that unit to begin with. It's just tanky with hardly any control possible/necessary on the unit itself. Blizzard had the right idea trying to balancing them around some new ability, but just adding a combat ability on an existing unit is probably pretty hard, unless the unit was very weak to begin with. And in particular the underground charge with units being thrown away from the ultralisk so that it has to close in again was weird, visually and gameplaywise.
My suggestion is a small DPS nerf to the Roach (down from like 16 to 14) while reducing supply from 2 to 1. I wouldn't call that a remaking of the unit. It's rather an acknowledgement that you cannot tweak the Roach in itself to create more interactions (you can do this through burrow movement though). But you can change the gamedynamics of the game by tweaking the Roach in order to promote more battles.
Agreed, you can't just suddenly give roaches a hive upgrade to make them "good in the late game". Even if the upgrade cost 300/300 it would still be terribly OP since roaches are so cheap and easily massed, and if you don't make the upgrade good enough then it'll just be a niche upgrade like burrow movement that few ever gets.
Although I still shudder at the thought of 1 supply roaches... that's probably a route Blizzard should never go back to.
Just give a hive upgrade that make roach need only 1 supply instead of 2 (and maybe hydras too). The time Zerg gets hive + the upgrade, the T/P already has some AOE/immortal/upgraded bio counter so it's not OP anymore.
Aslo zerg could swarm his opponent, constantly reproduicing roach/hydra + vipers and attacking/trading constantly in ZvP for example, rather than being forced to go Swarm host defensive vs protoss late game. And probably much more interesting for protoss trading vs a swarm of roach/hydras/vipers rather than the locusts. The zerg army will cost more, but he will be able to secure more base as he has more units and more mobile than SH.
Aslo, then you can consider reworking SH to prevent lame use without breaking balance.
With the current roach and hydralisk this would be quite broken, assuming the upgrade has any form of "normal costs" (not something like 1000/1000).
Maybe just roach, not hydras. I don't think this is OP, colossus/immortal/storm absolutly crush a roach hydras army. Also you must consider a 200/200 army of roach/hydras with 1 supply is twice more expansive than one with 2. 50 roach + 50 hydras =3750min1250gaz + 5000min +2500gaz= 8750min + 3750gaz, and toss can have 15 colossus for only 4500/3000.
1 supply roach and hydra would destroy zvt. Bad suggestion unless it involves heavy nerfs to these units too. A weaker but 1 supply roach / hydra would fit with the swarminess of zerg, but would make it even worse against aoe attacks, and unless unit costs are also changed, could be a nerf for certain timings.
On August 07 2014 02:44 Haukinger wrote: Why not make Hive increase supply cap, say, 50 for each Hive?
Units are partly balanced around supply costs. Supply max should be a fixed value. It also means zerg would just turtle and get infinity supply cap before ever attacking.
E.g. I think roaches on creep are too fast in general. Speedlings are way too fast. Banelings are too fast. Ultras are too fast.
I disagree here.I think the issue with Roaches are that they are too strong for the cost cost + too supply ineffective. Right now they serve as a midgame map control unit, which creates lame gameplay as enemy just turtles against it. But maintaining the creeprelated defenders advantage for Roaches is extremely important. Otherwise its gonna be a unit your just gonna make a lot of and then kill your opponent and/or zerg is gonna be even more vulnerable to timing attacks.
By reducing cost-efficiency I believe enemy can go out on the map more easily in the midgame, and with creep-spread defenders advantage maintained, the zerg should still be able to survive without "strong" mapcontrol.
Ultras I think should be much faster both off-creep and oncreep, but less splash/armor. The issue with them right now vs terran is that they are way too strong vs bio-play in a straight up engagement, but he can and is forced to infinitely kite which isn't a good interaction. I think much faster Ultras that cannot be kited effectively, but which instead are weaker in a straight up battle will be good for the game.
That's not to say I disagree with your ideas, but what you are proposing is a fullout remake of the unit, while in was just talking about how the current roachspeed interacts with the speed of other units. If we talk about a different roach with a different gameplay dynamic, this does of course open quite other design/balance opportunities.
About the ultralisk, I just don't really like that unit to begin with. It's just tanky with hardly any control possible/necessary on the unit itself. Blizzard had the right idea trying to balancing them around some new ability, but just adding a combat ability on an existing unit is probably pretty hard, unless the unit was very weak to begin with. And in particular the underground charge with units being thrown away from the ultralisk so that it has to close in again was weird, visually and gameplaywise.
My suggestion is a small DPS nerf to the Roach (down from like 16 to 14) while reducing supply from 2 to 1. I wouldn't call that a remaking of the unit. It's rather an acknowledgement that you cannot tweak the Roach in itself to create more interactions (you can do this through burrow movement though). But you can change the gamedynamics of the game by tweaking the Roach in order to promote more battles.
Agreed, you can't just suddenly give roaches a hive upgrade to make them "good in the late game". Even if the upgrade cost 300/300 it would still be terribly OP since roaches are so cheap and easily massed, and if you don't make the upgrade good enough then it'll just be a niche upgrade like burrow movement that few ever gets.
Although I still shudder at the thought of 1 supply roaches... that's probably a route Blizzard should never go back to.
Just give a hive upgrade that make roach need only 1 supply instead of 2 (and maybe hydras too). The time Zerg gets hive + the upgrade, the T/P already has some AOE/immortal/upgraded bio counter so it's not OP anymore.
Aslo zerg could swarm his opponent, constantly reproduicing roach/hydra + vipers and attacking/trading constantly in ZvP for example, rather than being forced to go Swarm host defensive vs protoss late game. And probably much more interesting for protoss trading vs a swarm of roach/hydras/vipers rather than the locusts. The zerg army will cost more, but he will be able to secure more base as he has more units and more mobile than SH.
Aslo, then you can consider reworking SH to prevent lame use without breaking balance.
With the current roach and hydralisk this would be quite broken, assuming the upgrade has any form of "normal costs" (not something like 1000/1000).
Maybe just roach, not hydras. I don't think this is OP, colossus/immortal/storm absolutly crush a roach hydras army. Also you must consider a 200/200 army of roach/hydras with 1 supply is twice more expansive than one with 2. 50 roach + 50 hydras =3750min1250gaz + 5000min +2500gaz= 8750min + 3750gaz, and toss can have 15 colossus for only 4500/3000.
1 supply roach and hydra would destroy zvt. Bad suggestion unless it involves heavy nerfs to these units too. A weaker but 1 supply roach / hydra would fit with the swarminess of zerg, but would make it even worse against aoe attacks, and unless unit costs are also changed, could be a nerf for certain timings.
On August 07 2014 02:44 Haukinger wrote: Why not make Hive increase supply cap, say, 50 for each Hive?
Units are partly balanced around supply costs. Supply max should be a fixed value. It also means zerg would just turtle and get infinity supply cap before ever attacking.
On August 06 2014 20:57 Faust852 wrote: ^How do you defend more than 3 bases without a PF ? Terran has no anti harass tech except for the PF.
Bunker? Widow Mine? Actually having an army?
Throw a bunker and two widow mines on your third and fourth... That's 16 supply wasted.
If you assume a reasonable worker count, your army is now 15% smaller than it should be, and the Terran late game army is already quite weak. A Terran literally cannot win a straight up fight while also defending their bases from harass.
The game is balanced around this fact, but suggesting that a Terran should defend their bases with bunkers and widow mines just demonstrates a horrible failure to understand the game.
Generally a Terran defends by attacking. Especially in TvZ where constant aggression is the only way to keep mutas out of your base.
On August 06 2014 20:57 Faust852 wrote: ^How do you defend more than 3 bases without a PF ? Terran has no anti harass tech except for the PF.
Bunker? Widow Mine? Actually having an army?
Throw a bunker and two widow mines on your third and fourth... That's 16 supply wasted.
If you assume a reasonable worker count, your army is now 15% smaller than it should be, and the Terran late game army is already quite weak. A Terran literally cannot win a straight up fight while also defending their bases from harass.
The game is balanced around this fact, but suggesting that a Terran should defend their bases with bunkers and widow mines just demonstrates a horrible failure to understand the game.
Generally a Terran defends by attacking. Especially in TvZ where constant aggression is the only way to keep mutas out of your base.
On August 06 2014 20:57 Faust852 wrote: ^How do you defend more than 3 bases without a PF ? Terran has no anti harass tech except for the PF.
Bunker? Widow Mine? Actually having an army?
Throw a bunker and two widow mines on your third and fourth... That's 16 supply wasted.
If you assume a reasonable worker count, your army is now 15% smaller than it should be, and the Terran late game army is already quite weak. A Terran literally cannot win a straight up fight while also defending their bases from harass.
The game is balanced around this fact, but suggesting that a Terran should defend their bases with bunkers and widow mines just demonstrates a horrible failure to understand the game.
Generally a Terran defends by attacking. Especially in TvZ where constant aggression is the only way to keep mutas out of your base.
Clearly Tajea did not bring back group of marines and a marauder to clean those roaches up. Idk man, maybe those 4 marines in a bunker did such a great job at stopping those roaches.
On August 06 2014 20:57 Faust852 wrote: ^How do you defend more than 3 bases without a PF ? Terran has no anti harass tech except for the PF.
Bunker? Widow Mine? Actually having an army?
Throw a bunker and two widow mines on your third and fourth... That's 16 supply wasted.
If you assume a reasonable worker count, your army is now 15% smaller than it should be, and the Terran late game army is already quite weak. A Terran literally cannot win a straight up fight while also defending their bases from harass.
The game is balanced around this fact, but suggesting that a Terran should defend their bases with bunkers and widow mines just demonstrates a horrible failure to understand the game.
Generally a Terran defends by attacking. Especially in TvZ where constant aggression is the only way to keep mutas out of your base.
Clearly Tajea did not bring back group of marines and a marauder to clean those roaches up. Idk man, maybe those 4 marines in a bunker did such a great job at stopping those roaches.
I can appreciate your strawman. For one, this is practically the zerg's entire army, not a simple "harass". Also, you didn't look at the entire gameplay. Later on those bunkers become instrumental in tying up, delaying, or simply defeating parts of harass forces in order to minimize damage to minerals. Rewinding to game one, we can see defensively placed widow mines heavily attrition harass forces of mutas or zerglings. At that level of play, redundancy or resource waste gets you killed. So I want you to ask yourself "Why did the Terran get bunkers or defensive widow mines if it's so obviously bad because it costs you supply to defend against harass?".
I also would like you to question of logic of "16 supply" in place to stop harass making the main army weaker. If there's harass, isn't the other player using up supply to commit to that attack, thus weakening his army's supply count as well? There doesn't have to be a full bunker and two widow mines at every base. There doesn't have to be bunker and widow mines together at every base.
Terran didn't just say to himself "gee, I feel like in this specific instance in this game, it feels like I should place two bunkers here, even though I've never done it before". Terran has practiced and planned this as part of the gameplay. It wasn't some random split second decision. If it's practiced and planned and then actually used, then there must be a good reason behind it when there's money and points on the line.
That game isnt an accurate portrayal of the issue anyways, so its a mute point. The bunker was thrown down after a heavy pressure build on the part of Life, was only the third (which is standard to make a bunker at anyways), and was not very late into the game. As Terran, the threat of late game harrass is very real, against both Zerg and Protoss. Though with the mine buff the problem has been severely diminished against Zerg, the fact remains that Terran needs its entire army together in the late game to win major fights. If you are not constantly pressuring the Zerg, mutas can wreck your production in seconds by sniping addons. Against Protoss, who never needs max supply to fight against a Terran max army in the late mid and early late game, a warp prism can do the same and be even harder to deal with (at least you can mass turrets against mutas).
And while people always counter that Terran has drops, drops rarely do that much damage, especially against Toss. Good ovie spread and mini-map awareness practically shuts down drops outright, unless very well timed with a major push, and Toss can just leave behind 5 chargelots and a ht in the main, plus warpins, plus nexus cannon to stop drops. The only matchup where drops are a major game ending threat is TvT.
If you send an army attack first, your harass does more damage, if you send harass first, your army attack does more damage. This isnt news.
Your point is a bit moot as well, if you bother to research 3-3 bio or digging claws upgrade for widow mines. Those things can snipe an entire mineral line before protoss can even react.
On August 06 2014 20:57 Faust852 wrote: ^How do you defend more than 3 bases without a PF ? Terran has no anti harass tech except for the PF.
Bunker? Widow Mine? Actually having an army?
Throw a bunker and two widow mines on your third and fourth... That's 16 supply wasted.
If you assume a reasonable worker count, your army is now 15% smaller than it should be, and the Terran late game army is already quite weak. A Terran literally cannot win a straight up fight while also defending their bases from harass.
The game is balanced around this fact, but suggesting that a Terran should defend their bases with bunkers and widow mines just demonstrates a horrible failure to understand the game.
Generally a Terran defends by attacking. Especially in TvZ where constant aggression is the only way to keep mutas out of your base.
Clearly Tajea did not bring back group of marines and a marauder to clean those roaches up. Idk man, maybe those 4 marines in a bunker did such a great job at stopping those roaches.
I can appreciate your strawman. For one, this is practically the zerg's entire army, not a simple "harass". Also, you didn't look at the entire gameplay. Later on those bunkers become instrumental in tying up, delaying, or simply defeating parts of harass forces in order to minimize damage to minerals. Rewinding to game one, we can see defensively placed widow mines heavily attrition harass forces of mutas or zerglings. At that level of play, redundancy or resource waste gets you killed. So I want you to ask yourself "Why did the Terran get bunkers or defensive widow mines if it's so obviously bad because it costs you supply to defend against harass?".
I also would like you to question of logic of "16 supply" in place to stop harass making the main army weaker. If there's harass, isn't the other player using up supply to commit to that attack, thus weakening his army's supply count as well? There doesn't have to be a full bunker and two widow mines at every base. There doesn't have to be bunker and widow mines together at every base.
Terran didn't just say to himself "gee, I feel like in this specific instance in this game, it feels like I should place two bunkers here, even though I've never done it before". Terran has practiced and planned this as part of the gameplay. It wasn't some random split second decision. If it's practiced and planned and then actually used, then there must be a good reason behind it when there's money and points on the line.
lol is the reason of not having any other static defense options not good enough? You're in an argument you can't win. No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that z/p CAN make cannons/spines against harass that may or may NOT come, while t has to split actual supply to accomplish the same thing. You even said it yourself, "If there's harass...". It all boils down to the relatively low opportunity cost of spending 300 minerals on 2 cannons vs. the comparatively high opportunity cost of building a bunker AND splitting off 4 marines losing 4 supplies.
The game you brought up showcasing a TvZ against roaches is probably the worst example of this, I could literally find 20X the number of games where zergling runbys at the third or zealot warpins in the main ravages the Terran during a main engagement, that despite the Terran having all of his army in one place is still quite close due to zerg/protoss AOE.
The game is pretty balanced in this regard anyway; before maxed supply the opportunity cost of splitting a few units for defense isn't very high (only production facility usage is a factor here), and after maxing on 200/200 Terrans have the option of making PFs for defense.
It's the way you call strawman on shadow's post while resorting to doing the same thing with a biasd game that makes you a bit hypocritical.
I'm sorry, I guess when they introduced mules to allow Terrans a greater standing army, PFs, and ported the bunker from brood war to sc2, I assumed people would be able to put 2 and 2 together.
On August 07 2014 10:53 Socup wrote: If you send an army attack first, your harass does more damage, if you send harass first, your army attack does more damage. This isnt news.
Your point is a bit moot as well, if you bother to research 3-3 bio or digging claws upgrade for widow mines. Those things can snipe an entire mineral line before protoss can even react.
You completely missed the point. Protoss can leave units behind to defend because they dont need a max army to fight a max Terran army, but the same is not true in reverse. Toss can always have units there waiting to defend, can have a planetary cannon on any nexus, or warp in zealots in 5 game seconds (which will have better upgrades than bio) to react. Obviously if you dont react then you will take damage, no shit, thats true for both sides. The point is however that Toss has much better tools to react with that Terran does.
If you bother to research 3-3? If you bother to research drilling claws? Obviously you always want to get 3-3, but Toss will always get there first, this isnt news. And getting drilling claws is a waste of time and money in 99% of TvPs since robo first openings have become standard again. And neither one can snipe entire mineral lines before Toss can even react because if you have vision on them about to enter your base you can kill the medivacs with fb and blink, can move the probes away, can cannon the nexus..all before the drop can unload and/or widow mines burrow or get anywhere near an active mineral line for that matter.
Also, talking about drops vs wp play, the wp is clearly far superior. Whereas with drops you have to build the supply at your base and then transport it to the opponents side of the map, opening a large window where you are not harassing but your main army is weaker due to missing those units, the warp prism allows Toss to not tie up any supply until they are actually warped into the enemy's base. If during the time between sending the wp out and it getting to the other side of the map you are pressured or attacked by the opponent as Toss, you can just choose to warp in at home instead, and you will have created no disadvantage for yourself. The same is not true for Terran, who simply loses that supply in any potential fight during the transit time. Also, whereas drops are limited by 8 supply per medivac, which is why two are often sent to harass, the wp is limited only by how many gates are off cooldown..in addition to being able to carry 8 supply themselves.
On August 07 2014 11:45 Socup wrote: I'm sorry, I guess when they introduced mules to allow Terrans a greater standing army, PFs, and ported the bunker from brood war to sc2, I assumed people would be able to put 2 and 2 together.
They also introduced chrono to allow Toss to build workers/army/upgrades faster..
On August 07 2014 11:45 Socup wrote: I'm sorry, I guess when they introduced mules to allow Terrans a greater standing army, PFs, and ported the bunker from brood war to sc2, I assumed people would be able to put 2 and 2 together.
Ok now you're just being passive-aggressive through typical balance whining. The opportunity cost of spending resources AND splitting supplies for static defense for Terran is going to be higher than JUST spending resource on static defense for z/p, and the PF is necessary to make up for this Terran deficit in the late game. I don't even know why you're trying arguing about this fact. 1+1 > 1, I assumed you would be able to piece this logic together.
I'll quote myself again to clarify this point, which you haven't responded to and instead decided to throw me another poorly conceived straw man instead.
On August 07 2014 11:08 EngrishTeacher wrote: You're in an argument you can't win. No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that z/p CAN make cannons/spines against harass that may or may NOT come, while t has to split actual supply to accomplish the same thing. You even said it yourself, "If there's harass...". It all boils down to the relatively low opportunity cost of spending 300 minerals on 2 cannons vs. the comparatively high opportunity cost of building a bunker AND splitting off 4 marines losing 4 supplies.
Just be cool man, you don't have to win every argument on the internet, especially when you've taken a position that you cannot logically win. The only reason I'm calling you out is because of the hypocritical way you're acting, accusing someone else of using a straw man argument when you've done the same twice in a row now.
On August 07 2014 10:53 Socup wrote: If you send an army attack first, your harass does more damage, if you send harass first, your army attack does more damage. This isnt news.
Your point is a bit moot as well, if you bother to research 3-3 bio or digging claws upgrade for widow mines. Those things can snipe an entire mineral line before protoss can even react.
You completely missed the point. Protoss can leave units behind to defend because they dont need a max army to fight a max Terran army, but the same is not true in reverse. Toss can always have units there waiting to defend, can have a planetary cannon on any nexus, or warp in zealots in 5 game seconds (which will have better upgrades than bio) to react. Obviously if you dont react then you will take damage, no shit, thats true for both sides. The point is however that Toss has much better tools to react with that Terran does.
If you bother to research 3-3? If you bother to research drilling claws? Obviously you always want to get 3-3, but Toss will always get there first, this isnt news. And getting drilling claws is a waste of time and money in 99% of TvPs since robo first openings have become standard again. And neither one can snipe entire mineral lines before Toss can even react because if you have vision on them about to enter your base you can kill the medivacs with fb and blink, can move the probes away, can cannon the nexus..all before the drop can unload and/or widow mines burrow or get anywhere near an active mineral line for that matter.
Also, talking about drops vs wp play, the wp is clearly far superior. Whereas with drops you have to build the supply at your base and then transport it to the opponents side of the map, opening a large window where you are not harassing but your main army is weaker due to missing those units, the warp prism allows Toss to not tie up any supply until they are actually warped into the enemy's base. If during the time between sending the wp out and it getting to the other side of the map you are pressured or attacked by the opponent as Toss, you can just choose to warp in at home instead, and you will have created no disadvantage for yourself. The same is not true for Terran, who simply loses that supply in any potential fight during the transit time. Also, whereas drops are limited by 8 supply per medivac, which is why two are often sent to harass, the wp is limited only by how many gates are off cooldown..in addition to being able to carry 8 supply themselves.
I understand your issues, but they are really non-issues. Robo first doesn't suddenly make widow mines invalid in mid or late game. Have you ever looked at the supply cost needed to drop harass as Terran vs the supply cost needed to defend as protoss?
On August 07 2014 11:45 Socup wrote: I'm sorry, I guess when they introduced mules to allow Terrans a greater standing army, PFs, and ported the bunker from brood war to sc2, I assumed people would be able to put 2 and 2 together.
They also introduced chrono to allow Toss to build workers/army/upgrades faster..
Another non-issue. It doesn't address the fact that Terran has a larger standing army at 200 food. Strawman, basically.
On August 07 2014 11:45 Socup wrote: I'm sorry, I guess when they introduced mules to allow Terrans a greater standing army, PFs, and ported the bunker from brood war to sc2, I assumed people would be able to put 2 and 2 together.
Ok now you're just being passive-aggressive through typical balance whining. The opportunity cost of spending resources AND splitting supplies for static defense for Terran is going to be higher than JUST spending resource on static defense for z/p, and the PF is necessary to make up for this Terran deficit in the late game. I don't even know why you're trying arguing about this fact. 1+1 > 1, I assumed you would be able to piece this logic together.
I'll quote myself again to clarify this point, which you haven't responded to and instead decided to throw me another poorly conceived straw man instead.
On August 07 2014 11:08 EngrishTeacher wrote: You're in an argument you can't win. No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that z/p CAN make cannons/spines against harass that may or may NOT come, while t has to split actual supply to accomplish the same thing. You even said it yourself, "If there's harass...". It all boils down to the relatively low opportunity cost of spending 300 minerals on 2 cannons vs. the comparatively high opportunity cost of building a bunker AND splitting off 4 marines losing 4 supplies.
Just be cool man, you don't have to win every argument on the internet, especially when you've taken a position that you cannot logically win. The only reason I'm calling you out is because of the hypocritical way you're acting, accusing someone else of using a straw man argument when you've done the same twice in a row now.
Balance whining? No. I can appreciate that you really believe what you're saying, but the person with the illogical argument is the one saying that the supply cost of Terran having a bunker somehow makes or breaks Terran being able to fight main army vs main army. That's completely illogical and a terrible stance to take. I can't make you understand if you don't want to understand.
EPT
