EPTJesus Christ
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1053
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
Jesus Christ | ||
|
Genome852
United States979 Posts
On August 10 2014 06:33 forsooth wrote: People are still complaining about 2rax in 2014 Jesus Christ Not as bad as people complaining about mules, still. Lolol | ||
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
Do you know how frustrating it is to lose vs proxy builds in TvP, Two base Immortal allin in TvP, Mass ling/bling bust in TvZ, Roach/bling with fake 3rd in TvZ, 1/1 Roach allin in TvZ and many more? You are suggesting to remove one of the most coinflippy allins so you are more safe while still more than double the amount of allins for your race? Do you consider it fair how few allins are available for Terran compared to Protoss and Zerg allins in this matchup? Proxy 2 rax has been there for ages and it is not imba. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On August 10 2014 06:52 TurboMaN wrote: Removing one of Terrans limited numbers of allins is just ridiculous if you don't punish the other races. Do you know how frustrating it is to lose vs proxy builds in TvP, Two base Immortal allin in TvP, Mass ling/bling bust in TvZ, Roach/bling with fake 3rd in TvZ, 1/1 Roach allin in TvZ and many more? You are suggesting to remove one of the most coinflippy allins so you are more safe while still more than double the amount of allins for your race? Do you consider it fair how few allins are available for Terran compared to Protoss and Zerg allins in this matchup? Proxy 2 rax has been there for ages and it is not imba. I dislike the attitude of "race X has stupid unfun shit so therefore race Y should also have stupid unfun shit". Dumb jaoulxi logic imo. Less stupid shit is always better. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 10 2014 04:02 Big J wrote: It's a coinflip that comes before you can comfortably scout. Exactly how is 2 rax a coinflip? It's actually one of the rare cheeses you can hold without scouting it in advance. And if you never want to play the hatch first vs 2 rax scenario on a 2p map, you can 9-10 scout like some pros do (LosirA always does it for instance). So the gameplay is about how much you are willing to blindly sacrifice - nothing skillbased. Even more on big 4p maps. If you pool first and the Terran also scouts and insta-abandons the pressure it's basically even. Not true in all cases, but whatever—so? You want your macro game, you have it and you're not happy? The micro you are talking about is basic micro of any single TvZ engagment (and not even that since no mutas, mines, medivas and banes are around which all require extra control) which makes any TvZ that includes a combat more micro intense than 2rax. The micro may be "basic," yet you can still see clear differences between the best 2 rax players like Maru or Bogus and "low Code S" players like KeeN; way more than the first 10 minutes of a Hellions 3OC build actually. I don't see much pertinence in comparing one situation in which you have 4-10 units of 2 different types, and another in which you control 50+ with up to 5 different types of units. It's neither needed for balance nor produces superior games. So? Tons of builds don't have a critical impact on a match-up or are not "needed," why should they be nuked for all that... Some 2 rax games, even if they last "only" a few minutes, have kept me on the edge of my seat much more than some longer macro games. It depends on the context and it's a matter of taste. It's just a bullshit "easy way out" opion to prevent having to train the whole matchup for one side. Even if you want to play proxy 2 rax 100% of the time of TvZ, you'll have to play macro or at least some kind of transition in a significant part of your games... On August 10 2014 05:31 ReMinD_ wrote: And about the micro, in case of a bunker rush, micro is only available to the Terran. Or you suddenly expect for slow lings, queens and spine crawler to 'outmicro' ranged units. It ain't happening. The Zerg is entirely at the mercy of Terran. That's completely untrue. Do you think soO is sleeping here? Does he look like the helpless victim of the Terran ogre? | ||
|
Socup
190 Posts
On August 10 2014 04:02 Big J wrote: It's a coinflip that comes before you can comfortably scout. So the gameplay is about how much you are willing to blindly sacrifice - nothing skillbased. Even more on big 4p maps. If you pool first and the Terran also scouts and insta-abandons the pressure it's basically even. The micro you are talking about is basic micro of any single TvZ engagment (and not even that since no mutas, mines, medivas and banes are around which all require extra control) which makes any TvZ that includes a combat more micro intense than 2rax. It's neither needed for balance nor produces superior games. It's just a bullshit "easy way out" opion to prevent having to train the whole matchup for one side. And pretty anoying when you hit those players that openly admit that they 2rax every single TvZ "because they can. Bitch please." (proxy rax isn't just for sc2) You are perfectly correct. It's a strategy that is contingent on a player being so "good" on the zerg side, that they go hatch before pool to try to get a strong midgame economy or skip making blind zerglings + sunk/spine (game depending) in order to go straight for tech or mass eco. This proxy rax would probably fail against any silver-gold zerg that goes 14-15 pool that also happens to have strong mechanics but hasn't yet learned the greed metagame of "higher level" play. On August 10 2014 04:09 Faust852 wrote: Remove 2 rax and enjoy how greedy zerg will play on 4 players maps. And you can deal with it without even scouting tbh. You just need to learn how to deal with it. Like this. Massing drones and massing hatches early on is greed play but it's based on metagame. If terrans had some sort of early game punishment that was "straight up play" rather than proxy rax or reaper into hellion harass, Zergs would be forced to play more conservative. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. If you get to the level of play where T does the reaper harass into hellion nearly 100% of the time (metagame), then it feels easy and even comfortable to simply throw up a blind spine at your natural and defend your main+nat with the two or three queens you built, and you'll take absolutely zero damage, while the Terran got early gas, thus sacrificing midgame economy by not going for greed mass CC and no gas mineral play to translate into more scvs, mules, and better gas mining midgame). http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/Day[9]0002-BuildingTriggers.mp3 Skip the imaginary players bit. When scouting, look for no rax in base and automatically throw up a spine. No reason not to. On August 10 2014 05:30 Hider wrote: Agree, I don't think zerg will be considerably more greedy if 2rax goes away, and I would argue that +2/3% greed barely matters anyway for the overall gameflow. Its not like you can't hellion/banshee/marine pressure in the early midgame/late early game anyway. 2 rax is just a dumb lame opening that shouldn't be (semi)viable imo. 6-7 pool ZvZ/8 pool ZvP is just a dumb lame opening that shouldn't be (semi)viable. See how we can go in circles with this? I don't like this underlying theme of "early game aggression is bad, we should be able to spam economy until mid game to fight shoulder to shoulder in some sort of honor combat like 1700's flintlock rifle battlefields, just sending massed infantry against their massed infantry, firing and chewing up the front line repeatedly until one side derpaderp wins". That's about analogous to this arbitrary ruleset of some sort of "standard/non-strategy play is best". | ||
|
bigbadgreen
United States142 Posts
This way there would be a negative to throwing down one or two bunkers depending. I've seen terrans just throw down a bunker near a natural with no intentions of a 2 rax and just salvage it after they know they have forced zerg to slow down their economy and ability to keep up in the mid game. With mules and salvage there is really no negative there. I don't think they should touch mules so I think they either need to get rid of salvage or reduce it's return. overall though there are far larger issues with the game than 2 rax. But it is still annoying for sure. | ||
|
Socup
190 Posts
This is related to the so called Macro mechanics, mule, inject, etc, and not to the power of proxy rax vs early zerg aggression at all. Without macro mechanics no race would have an exponential economy growth that can quickly turn a rebuffed early game aggression into a do-or-fail all in by the opposing side. Terran was going to build those raxes anyway, but Zerg wasn't going to build those spines/ling to keep their economy growth high unless it's in response to some proxy or reaper play. You've got the right track, but you're attributing the problem to the wrong thing. http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StarCraft/Zerg_strategies#Zerg Look at all the possible variations of rushes zerg has in brood war, for example. The Supply depot/rax/eng bay wall off in brood war was an unexpected gameplay element that intelligent Terran players abused religiously because it allows cutting coners; less need for early bunker+large clump of marines. The makers of SC1 had no intent of this being done to completely wall off easily. It was an unexpected abuse of a mechanic that became normal gameplay which in turn changed the metagame. Then the new people on staff for blizz designing SC2 took that one step further by allowing depots to be lowered rather than people raising and lowering an eng bay/rax to get out of their base. You may notice another critical component to this. Big Game Hunters was a map everyone and their mother played in the heyday of SC1. It had a main choke identical to the chokes of EVERY SINGLE MAIN in SC2 today. That is, it only takes 2 depots and a large building to wall off completely. Most other maps that are played in serious gameplay in Brood War lack such easily controlled main chokes, and you can watch streams of Brood War now that emphasize this. It's a "perfect storm" scenario of different elements; the facilitation of supply depot wall off by blizz implementing new mechanics to make it stronger and easier, the fact that all mains are on high ground and all mains have a choke that is easily walled off, and the macro mechanics which allow someone who uses minimal defenses and maximized CC/nexus/hatch production with chrono/inject/MULE to exponentially gain early economic advantages against any attacker. Zerg has to play passive early game because of these issues due to weaker/melee units and the expensive roach or the 1 time use baneling in any attempt at early aggression. Zerg units were designed to be cost inefficient while at the same time more expendable via banes or roaches being commit/die or don''t commit. Another nail in the coffin of early game Zerg aggression. The few options Zerg has must do damage or you lose, and that's based on all these reasons. It's not proxy rax that's overpowered. There's so many issues at work which pushes the metagame into early game passive Zerg and early game aggressive T. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 10 2014 12:19 Socup wrote: You may notice another critical component to this. Big Game Hunters was a map everyone and their mother played in the heyday of SC1. It had a main choke identical to the chokes of EVERY SINGLE MAIN in SC2 today. That is, it only takes 2 depots and a large building to wall off completely. Most other maps that are played in serious gameplay in Brood War lack such easily controlled main chokes, and you can watch streams of Brood War now that emphasize this. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a competitive map that requires more than a rax and 2 depots to wall the main. edit: oh, unless we're talking about maps with two entrances. But I don't think you'll see too many players streaming games on Bifrost or Alchemist. | ||
|
starslayer
United States696 Posts
On August 10 2014 06:36 Genome852 wrote: Not as bad as people complaining about mules, still. Lolol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEztHsccVL0 omg i still get chills thinking about that series and that last game... MVP by far (imo) the greatest sc2 player of all time. also watching mvps mom during the mothership bc fight was soo funny she had no idea what was going on but knew it was bad. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 10 2014 11:05 bigbadgreen wrote: 2 rax is still just a hint too powerful for what it is. It's defendable, it can be held. I think the larger issue here is how it effects the zerg going into the mid game no matter what. Even if you hold chances are you are even. With other early aggression you are putting yourself behind if you don't do enough damage. with the 2 rax it's too easy to bail out and go into a normal game. they should just get rid of the salvage ability. How often does this mechanic come into play other than early aggression. This way there would be a negative to throwing down one or two bunkers depending. I've seen terrans just throw down a bunker near a natural with no intentions of a 2 rax and just salvage it after they know they have forced zerg to slow down their economy and ability to keep up in the mid game. With mules and salvage there is really no negative there. I don't think they should touch mules so I think they either need to get rid of salvage or reduce it's return. overall though there are far larger issues with the game than 2 rax. But it is still annoying for sure. Salvage cast time could be longer to make using it aggressively less possible maybe? | ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
On August 10 2014 17:10 Grumbels wrote: Salvage cast time could be longer to make using it aggressively less possible maybe? Salvage should return 100 minerals and be a OC skill with like 20 range in my opinion. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1338 Posts
On August 10 2014 17:10 Grumbels wrote: Salvage cast time could be longer to make using it aggressively less possible maybe? i like this idea. not a big thing but would make 2 rax slightly more all in which is needed for the power it has. the risk/reward of 2 rax is just slightly too good especially on 4 player maps where its impossible to scout. | ||
|
LoneYoShi
France1348 Posts
If in a ZvZ, one player goes 10pool while the other goes hatch -> gas -> pool, will you then complain about 10pool ? This is ridiculous. | ||
|
Svizcy
Slovenia300 Posts
In the game of proleague the were both cheesing btw, for those who do not know, Nexus first is a Eco Cheese, so he kinda deserved to lose that one, considering ppl already figured him out. Classic was defeated in ro32 code S preatty much with same thing, cause he reffused to open some other way than Nexus first and oponents left and right were taking advantage of this. | ||
|
FanaticCZ
Czech Republic287 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On August 10 2014 19:46 FanaticCZ wrote: Sure...remove salvage.. :D have fun building five bunkers vs fake blink allin and getting no minerals back. Maybe blink will become viable again ? Oh wait. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 10 2014 17:37 Morbidius wrote: Salvage should return 100 minerals and be a OC skill with like 20 range in my opinion. But then you should also be able to cast it on missile turrets maybe? (not sure I like the idea) | ||
| ||
