EPT16/15: pool finished @3:42, 370minerals, 18drones+1 in production
hm, which one will I do to defend the 2rax? The one that has less money and less workers to pull, or the one that just has more?
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1110
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
16/15: pool finished @3:42, 370minerals, 18drones+1 in production hm, which one will I do to defend the 2rax? The one that has less money and less workers to pull, or the one that just has more? | ||
|
submarine
Germany290 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 00:23 submarine wrote: Good point BigJ. Still seen not to many pros go 16/15 as softcounter to 11/11. Back in the day 14/14 was the consensus as best response, IF i remember correctly. With a 16 hatch your expo finishes a few seconds later. This means a later possible spine, later creep and later larvae production at the natural. Both builds have their pros and cons. It was the creep + spine that really nailed it actually. The worker pull is not to stop marines, but to protect the morphing spine. The 2nd hatch allows you to make lings while saving up energy for an emergency heal (on the spine) That's how zerg's did it in 2010 when barracks built faster and didn't need a supply depot. What's the excuse now that the barracks build slower, the maps are bigger, and you need a supply depot? | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1341 Posts
On September 25 2014 01:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: It was the creep + spine that really nailed it actually. The worker pull is not to stop marines, but to protect the morphing spine. The 2nd hatch allows you to make lings while saving up energy for an emergency heal (on the spine) That's how zerg's did it in 2010 when barracks built faster and didn't need a supply depot. What's the excuse now that the barracks build slower, the maps are bigger, and you need a supply depot? you mean the most OP time we ever saw in sc2 were tvz was like 60-65% winrate since it was THAT broken and we saw several nerfs to 11 11 because of that? 11 11 is still close to broken especially on some mape but hey, maybe the top T players that use it and top Z players that lose to need an excuse as you put it lol. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 25 2014 01:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: It was the creep + spine that really nailed it actually. The worker pull is not to stop marines, but to protect the morphing spine. The 2nd hatch allows you to make lings while saving up energy for an emergency heal (on the spine) That's how zerg's did it in 2010 when barracks built faster and didn't need a supply depot. What's the excuse now that the barracks build slower, the maps are bigger, and you need a supply depot? 60-70% winrate for Terran in the periode you refer to. Back in the days it simply didnt work that well to defend these kinds of plays. We dont need an "excuse now". The changes came for a reason. Edit: too late to the party. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On September 25 2014 01:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: It was the creep + spine that really nailed it actually. The worker pull is not to stop marines, but to protect the morphing spine. The 2nd hatch allows you to make lings while saving up energy for an emergency heal (on the spine) That's how zerg's did it in 2010 when barracks built faster and didn't need a supply depot. What's the excuse now that the barracks build slower, the maps are bigger, and you need a supply depot? I think it's partially because you could commit more to defending it and still be okay back then. Now with the threat of faster Hellbats / Mines / cheaper Banshees following up the 2 rax people are trying to play more economically against it. You needed tanks previously and those are slow and take a while so it bought Zerg some time to macro. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote: I think it's partially because you could commit more to defending it and still be okay back then. Now with the threat of faster Hellbats / Mines / cheaper Banshees following up the 2 rax people are trying to play more economically against it. You needed tanks previously and those are slow and take a while so it bought Zerg some time to macro. I don't disagree with any of that. But trying to have a good discussion about a proper response to a tech transition is a different discussion than 11/11 is too strong. On September 25 2014 01:24 Big J wrote: 60-70% winrate for Terran in the periode you refer to. Back in the days it simply didnt work that well to defend these kinds of plays. We dont need an "excuse now". The changes came for a reason. Edit: too late to the party. And yet it was Zerg players and MC that kept winning the GSL titles back then as well. The same arguments for Maru were also made for nestea and MC that _____ player does not count because they are oh so good that no one else should be compared to them. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
But to get off that fruitless discussion: back in those days proxy 11/11 came usually with an scv pull and stuff like that. And the follow up for Terran was 1CC or even some 1base play into 1CC. And zergs mainly played 2base muta or a two base bust. Obviously you have to come out more economically when your opponent is 3CCing behind, than when he just donated half of his worker force. Add to that that playerskill has grown massively since then. Which completely changes how those rushes are being played as well. Back in the days it was often enough to deny the bunkers from going up. These days Terrans can win without getting a bunker up and zergs cannot just build 3spines and hope the terran will eventually attack into them anymore but terrans will go home and run with the lead. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 03:02 Big J wrote: What is your argument? Your historical excurse is in no way a response to my argument that the builds you described didnt produce good winrates for zergs back in those days. Unless of course you imply that back in those games the game was fine, which I hope you dont. But to get off that fruitless discussion: back in those days proxy 11/11 came usually with an scv pull and stuff like that. And the follow up for Terran was 1CC or even some 1base play into 1CC. And zergs mainly played 2base muta or a two base bust. Obviously you have to come out more economically when your opponent is 3CCing behind, than when he just donated half of his worker force. Add to that that playerskill has grown massively since then. Which completely changes how those rushes are being played as well. Back in the days it was often enough to deny the bunkers from going up. These days Terrans can win without getting a bunker up and zergs cannot just build 3spines and hope the terran will eventually attack into them anymore but terrans will go home and run with the lead. What I'm saying is that back then people did not know how to beat 11/11 but those who did won the fucking GSL multiple times. What I'm saying is that what is being complained about has nothing to do with the actual rush--which is already weaker and slower than it was 4 years ago--is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet. Soo is currently on his 4rth straight GSL run. Zerg obviously don't have *that* hard a time beating terrains when they've been the one playing the most consistently. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That is a dumb and emotion based response especially when it was a strat that was already beatable when it hit faster on smaller maps. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote: This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote: It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote: It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. There is no track, there is no moon, there is no ideal state to aim for. The game evolves how it evolves, strategies develop on top of strategies, metas shift back and forth. The stupid notion that there is a happy place for us to guide the game to is absurd and belittles the whole concept of strategic evolution. | ||
|
xyzz
567 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25998 Posts
Regardless, you realistically cannot patch something like a 2 rax without having a lot of knock-on affects to every other Terran build, given how integral its components are to the race's go-to strategies. I like the existence of the humble 2 rax, as cheeses go it's very execution-dependent. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25998 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote: 5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. Yeahhhhh | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote: 5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. And which of these terrans aren't supposely better than thy players they beat ? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:34 Faust852 wrote: And which of these terrans aren't supposely better than thy players they beat ? By definition they were, during that match, better than the players they beat. | ||
|
imrusty269
United States1404 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote: 5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. Should have been 6. Jjakji what a scrub. | ||
| ||
