|
On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move.
Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units.
Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements.
|
The main problem is that you usually dont have the time. And when you have the time, the Terran isn't stupid enough to sit in the open, but rather will try to sit behind or in front of a choke point. You often have to cross half of the map (overgrowth, KSS, Foxtrot... just think about their 3rd/4th base locations) to set up an actual flank from the back. Yeah, longs are pretty mobile, but they don't teleport and they still are needed in large numbers in front of the Terran to prevent a plain snipe of your hatchery.
But that aside, as great as flanks are, they don't decide battles against 4M. If you can't defuse the mines it doesnt matter if you attack all front or 360degree, you just can't win when charging in.
While, if you defuse the mines efficiently, the Terran must lift anyways or he'll lose.
|
On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements.
To elaborate as to why mines work better off creep, it has to do with their targeting system.
When mines target something they have a lock down period that lasts around 1.25-1.5 sec (don't know exactly)
If a unit leaves their range before that period they stop targetting that unit, because of that sometimes you can see lings on creep running almost directly over the mine without triggering it.
It is possible for banes to do it around the edges of the mine range as well.
A much more dangerous scenario for the terran is that mines go off just as the unit runs past them, because marines are there and they are likely to take a bunch of the splash, this plays a big reason as to why fights ass deep on creep tend to end horribly for the terran.
|
Maybe Blizzard should do this:
Hive: Requirements:- Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push.
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push.
You can say the same about roach warren vs swimming pool  I would rather see some "discount" when you make 10 banelings or more at once.
Or maybe some return factor, like from a baneling which hits a unit or a structure you receive back some gas when from baneling which just dies you receive nothing. This way one borrowed baneling can return more gas than it was worth where a baneling a-move off creep into the mine would return nothing. This way we promote better player. The question is if they would use this gas to build more mutas or to build the Pit. I think we both know the answer 
|
On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements.
I know Zerg aren't stupid. I play Zerg. Flanking is hard.
But arguing that flanking a Terran army off-creep is worse than a frontal engagement on creep is borderline silly.
If your army is split on two sides of Terran, Mine AOE is going to deal less damage on your units because there are less. In fact, off creep Zerglings are better at baiting mines IMO because there's less chance they'll run past.
Also, obligatory response;
Unless YOU have player on the level, you cannot make statements about Flanks being less effective.
On October 15 2014 19:13 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements. To elaborate as to why mines work better off creep, it has to do with their targeting system. When mines target something they have a lock down period that lasts around 1.25-1.5 sec (don't know exactly) If a unit leaves their range before that period they stop targetting that unit, because of that sometimes you can see lings on creep running almost directly over the mine without triggering it. It is possible for banes to do it around the edges of the mine range as well. A much more dangerous scenario for the terran is that mines go off just as the unit runs past them, because marines are there and they are likely to take a bunch of the splash, this plays a big reason as to why fights ass deep on creep tend to end horribly for the terran. I know how mines work. Thanks.
|
Anyways, we've had a lot of discussion on stats being good, bad, shit, cherrypicked, bullshit, excellent, handmade, alligulaced, etcetera.
People are not going to agree on stats anytime soon.
I think I can speak for the objective majority here when I state:
In the current metagame, the recently buffed Widow Mine appears to be very strong. However, it's volatile nature makes it very hard to find definitive proof on it's strenght and importance.
Point is, Terran needs some sort of AOE to support the Marines (the only versatile unit in the Terran arsenal). Whether we like it or not, these are the facts.
Now, there's a couple of ways of dealing with the Widow Mines. I don't necessarily think they should be weaker. I'd like to tackle their survivability. 2/3 mines are not a problem. It's the bigger, snowballing clumps that start firing multiple shots that make the game messy.
I propose:
- Widow Mine Target Priority back to 20 from 19.
This makes the Mines die to shit around them, instead of mess with pathing and being generally awkward. They're small units, very hard to accurately click all the time in a fast-paced matchup as ZvT is.
- Widow Mine is no longer immune to Widow Mine Splash.
What this will again do, is make the massive clumps of mines die A LOT faster. Widow Mines kill each other in 3 shots. This will, in my opinion, affect TvP more than it will TvZ. Zealots all of a sudden deal with Mines less unreasonable. Zerglings and Banelings tend to move out of range fast enough, but every shot on a Zealot will cause friendly fire on the Mines themselves. Templar Opening Reborn!?
Alternatively:
- Widow Mine Health reduced to 80.
Why 80? Psionic Storm deals 80 damage, thus killing a mine. This transforms Mines' role in the army more into timed support. They're excellent against Zealots and Archons, but once Storm finishes, it'll be very hard to make them work effectively. Additionally, Banelings now 2- shot mines after +2. Trading 100/50 for 75/25 is a lot more reasonable, keeping in mind reproducability. This way, Zerg actually has a reasonable way to kill Mines scathered around when detection is scarce. Additionally, this gives Zerg a very powerful window for aggression or teching between +2 attack for Zerg finishing and 3/3 for Terran completing. The weakness at 3/3 won't be as large either, as Mines will die faster. Will this force Terran into Mine openings into Hellbat Thor lategames? Maybe. Exciting!!!
What do you guys think of this? I think discussion actual options makes more sense, is more fun and more constructive than bashing each other around.
Kind regards!
|
On October 15 2014 19:49 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements. I know Zerg aren't stupid. I play Zerg. Flanking is hard. But arguing that flanking a Terran army off-creep is worse than a frontal engagement on creep is borderline silly. If your army is split on two sides of Terran, Mine AOE is going to deal less damage on your units because there are less. In fact, off creep Zerglings are better at baiting mines IMO because there's less chance they'll run past. Also, obligatory response; Unless YOU have player on the level, you cannot make statements about Flanks being less effective. Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 19:13 HellHound wrote:On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements. To elaborate as to why mines work better off creep, it has to do with their targeting system. When mines target something they have a lock down period that lasts around 1.25-1.5 sec (don't know exactly) If a unit leaves their range before that period they stop targetting that unit, because of that sometimes you can see lings on creep running almost directly over the mine without triggering it. It is possible for banes to do it around the edges of the mine range as well. A much more dangerous scenario for the terran is that mines go off just as the unit runs past them, because marines are there and they are likely to take a bunch of the splash, this plays a big reason as to why fights ass deep on creep tend to end horribly for the terran. I know how mines work. Thanks.
Well, looking at most games against the parade push: Most of the time, Zerg have barely time to morph their Banelings. I doubt they have the time to set up a flank, tbh. But I might be wrong.
Therefore: Yes, IN an engagement, flanks are obviously better. But Zerg might just lose the 4th, while setting it up. And that's a risk, Zerg can't really take, imo. The Terran would just have to react properly and snipe the 4th. Flanks might not be worse in a direct engagement, but they're not worth the risk, imo.
|
On October 15 2014 20:06 Swisslink wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 19:49 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements. I know Zerg aren't stupid. I play Zerg. Flanking is hard. But arguing that flanking a Terran army off-creep is worse than a frontal engagement on creep is borderline silly. If your army is split on two sides of Terran, Mine AOE is going to deal less damage on your units because there are less. In fact, off creep Zerglings are better at baiting mines IMO because there's less chance they'll run past. Also, obligatory response; Unless YOU have player on the level, you cannot make statements about Flanks being less effective. On October 15 2014 19:13 HellHound wrote:On October 15 2014 18:37 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 18:20 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself. Nope. The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings. Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move. Its not only the Marines. The mines work alot better vs off-creep units. Trust me zerg players aren't stuppid. Unless youve played on the level and experienced it, i think you canno't make those statements. To elaborate as to why mines work better off creep, it has to do with their targeting system. When mines target something they have a lock down period that lasts around 1.25-1.5 sec (don't know exactly) If a unit leaves their range before that period they stop targetting that unit, because of that sometimes you can see lings on creep running almost directly over the mine without triggering it. It is possible for banes to do it around the edges of the mine range as well. A much more dangerous scenario for the terran is that mines go off just as the unit runs past them, because marines are there and they are likely to take a bunch of the splash, this plays a big reason as to why fights ass deep on creep tend to end horribly for the terran. I know how mines work. Thanks. Well, looking at most games against the parade push: Most of the time, Zerg have barely time to morph their Banelings. I doubt they have the time to set up a flank, tbh. But I might be wrong. Therefore: Yes, IN an engagement, flanks are obviously better. But Zerg might just lose the 4th, while setting it up. And that's a risk, Zerg can't really take, imo. The Terran would just have to react properly and snipe the 4th. Flanks might not be worse in a direct engagement, but they're not worth the risk, imo. That's a different discussion obviously. I'd have to look for more examples before I make a statement on that.
|
On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push.
On October 15 2014 20:04 SC2Toastie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Anyways, we've had a lot of discussion on stats being good, bad, shit, cherrypicked, bullshit, excellent, handmade, alligulaced, etcetera. People are not going to agree on stats anytime soon. I think I can speak for the objective majority here when I state: In the current metagame, the recently buffed Widow Mine appears to be very strong. However, it's volatile nature makes it very hard to find definitive proof on it's strenght and importance. Point is, Terran needs some sort of AOE to support the Marines (the only versatile unit in the Terran arsenal). Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. Now, there's a couple of ways of dealing with the Widow Mines. I don't necessarily think they should be weaker. I'd like to tackle their survivability. 2/3 mines are not a problem. It's the bigger, snowballing clumps that start firing multiple shots that make the game messy. I propose:
- Widow Mine Target Priority back to 20 from 19.
This makes the Mines die to shit around them, instead of mess with pathing and being generally awkward. They're small units, very hard to accurately click all the time in a fast-paced matchup as ZvT is.
- Widow Mine is no longer immune to Widow Mine Splash.
What this will again do, is make the massive clumps of mines die A LOT faster. Widow Mines kill each other in 3 shots. This will, in my opinion, affect TvP more than it will TvZ. Zealots all of a sudden deal with Mines less unreasonable. Zerglings and Banelings tend to move out of range fast enough, but every shot on a Zealot will cause friendly fire on the Mines themselves. Templar Opening Reborn!?
Alternatively:
- Widow Mine Health reduced to 80.
Why 80? Psionic Storm deals 80 damage, thus killing a mine. This transforms Mines' role in the army more into timed support. They're excellent against Zealots and Archons, but once Storm finishes, it'll be very hard to make them work effectively. Additionally, Banelings now 2- shot mines after +2. Trading 100/50 for 75/25 is a lot more reasonable, keeping in mind reproducability. This way, Zerg actually has a reasonable way to kill Mines scathered around when detection is scarce. Additionally, this gives Zerg a very powerful window for aggression or teching between +2 attack for Zerg finishing and 3/3 for Terran completing. The weakness at 3/3 won't be as large either, as Mines will die faster. Will this force Terran into Mine openings into Hellbat Thor lategames? Maybe. Exciting!!! What do you guys think of this? I think discussion actual options makes more sense, is more fun and more constructive than bashing each other around. Kind regards!
Thats a great idea!!!
For ZvZ!
But its prolly OP for other matchups, if its not then that would be great, zerg 3/3 won't be as late, and adrenal glands will be big.
But seriously, i would feel bad for protoss, that is not reasonable without further changes.
If a nerf proves to be necessary, but only a small nerf is required, then the widow mine change proposed by SC2Toastie looks good.
Widow mines are still damn good, but terran cannot make a ton of them, since they will start killing each other (specially vs toss). Its also great if templar openings become slightly more viable
edit: I fully support the hive change for LotV since bizz can make other changes to balance things out.
Save zvz plz XD, or maybe it becomes broodlord vs broodlord into corruptor vs corruptor T_T
|
On October 15 2014 20:04 SC2Toastie wrote:Anyways, we've had a lot of discussion on stats being good, bad, shit, cherrypicked, bullshit, excellent, handmade, alligulaced, etcetera. People are not going to agree on stats anytime soon. I think I can speak for the objective majority here when I state: In the current metagame, the recently buffed Widow Mine appears to be very strong. However, it's volatile nature makes it very hard to find definitive proof on it's strenght and importance. Point is, Terran needs some sort of AOE to support the Marines (the only versatile unit in the Terran arsenal). Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. Now, there's a couple of ways of dealing with the Widow Mines. I don't necessarily think they should be weaker. I'd like to tackle their survivability. 2/3 mines are not a problem. It's the bigger, snowballing clumps that start firing multiple shots that make the game messy. I propose:
- Widow Mine Target Priority back to 20 from 19.
This makes the Mines die to shit around them, instead of mess with pathing and being generally awkward. They're small units, very hard to accurately click all the time in a fast-paced matchup as ZvT is.
- Widow Mine is no longer immune to Widow Mine Splash.
What this will again do, is make the massive clumps of mines die A LOT faster. Widow Mines kill each other in 3 shots. This will, in my opinion, affect TvP more than it will TvZ. Zealots all of a sudden deal with Mines less unreasonable. Zerglings and Banelings tend to move out of range fast enough, but every shot on a Zealot will cause friendly fire on the Mines themselves. Templar Opening Reborn!?
Alternatively:
- Widow Mine Health reduced to 80.
Why 80? Psionic Storm deals 80 damage, thus killing a mine. This transforms Mines' role in the army more into timed support. They're excellent against Zealots and Archons, but once Storm finishes, it'll be very hard to make them work effectively. Additionally, Banelings now 2- shot mines after +2. Trading 100/50 for 75/25 is a lot more reasonable, keeping in mind reproducability. This way, Zerg actually has a reasonable way to kill Mines scathered around when detection is scarce. Additionally, this gives Zerg a very powerful window for aggression or teching between +2 attack for Zerg finishing and 3/3 for Terran completing. The weakness at 3/3 won't be as large either, as Mines will die faster. Will this force Terran into Mine openings into Hellbat Thor lategames? Maybe. Exciting!!! What do you guys think of this? I think discussion actual options makes more sense, is more fun and more constructive than bashing each other around. Kind regards!
I swear, this is like the first Terran player that I have seen in these 1000 pages of this thread that finally admits that his race could use a (minor) nerf, granted I don't check this thread every page, but still wow.
Props to you man for speaking out and not being driven by self-interested motives.
|
On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push.
As a Protoss player:
Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ.
Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses.
|
Widow Mine Target Priority back to 20 from 19.
This makes the Mines die to !@#$%^&* around them, instead of mess with pathing and being generally awkward. They're small units, very hard to accurately click all the time in a fast-paced matchup as ZvT is.
Widow Mine is no longer immune to Widow Mine Splash.
Don't think this is needed. Your supposed to spread out your army when you engage as zerg, that's why it incentivies micro. If your good enough to focus fire, then that's a reward for the zerg player.
Widow Mine is no longer immune to Widow Mine Splash.
What this will again do, is make the massive clumps of mines die A LOT faster. Widow Mines kill each other in 3 shots. This will, in my opinion, affect TvP more than it will TvZ. Zealots all of a sudden deal with Mines less unreasonable. Zerglings and Banelings tend to move out of range fast enough, but every shot on a Zealot will cause friendly fire on the Mines themselves. Templar Opening Reborn!?
There is already a big penalty for clumping your Widow Mines up. Spreading them up grants you a much better outcome during engagements.
Widow Mine Health reduced to 80.
Why 80? Psionic Storm deals 80 damage, thus killing a mine. This transforms Mines' role in the army more into timed support. They're excellent against Zealots and Archons, but once Storm finishes, it'll be very hard to make them work effectively. Additionally, Banelings now 2- shot mines after +2. Trading 100/50 for 75/25 is a lot more reasonable, keeping in mind reproducability. This way, Zerg actually has a reasonable way to kill Mines scathered around when detection is scarce. Additionally, this gives Zerg a very powerful window for aggression or teching between +2 attack for Zerg finishing and 3/3 for Terran completing. The weakness at 3/3 won't be as large either, as Mines will die faster. Will this force Terran into Mine openings into Hellbat Thor lategames? Maybe. Exciting!!!
Agree that Widow Mine should die in one hit to Storm. Either through Storm having + mechanical or Widow Mine 80HP:
|
On October 15 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push. As a Protoss player: Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ. Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses.
It's more of a conceptual change. I prefer to only have changes made to the game that improve the game design. I think requiring the Infestation Pit is an artifact of the requiring a Queen's Nest in the original Starcraft, but I don't think it's very clean in terms of design. If there are balance issues with reaching Hive more quickly with regards to Vipers it's always possible to make Vipers require an Infestation Pit. I think there are benefits to having more parity between the races in terms of when you can start your T3 upgrades.
|
On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T.
No, you don't get it.
When the Terran army depended on tanks. Because they would have to stop and siege if you force an engagement, could be made to stay out in one place. This meant that whenever you delayed their movement, the siege tanks would stop moving making the whole army stop moving. Their lower mobility allows for flanks since you could time your surround when they are still in transition before the tanks can siege up.
Terran pushes now follow SC and Bomber's train style of movement where a long stream of units charges in at a constant rate. This army can't be surrounded since they don't have a moment of weakness with which to envelope. You can do a strafing run on their supply line, attack sections of their army with sections of yours, but if you don't use the perfect amount of raiders either your raiders will get slaughtered or your main army will get slaughtered. To adapt to this Zerg players stopped what they used to do of making 30-40 banelings that artosis used to lose his shit over (especially when Losira did it) and Zerg now focus on getting quick upgrades and fast tech--but in order to do that tey delay their bane production as much as possible and they want banes to only finish right as the engagement happens.
It's not about whether a surround is good or not (it is) but instead it's about the tempo of the matchup not having an easily observable opening on which to surround.
|
On October 15 2014 23:08 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push. As a Protoss player: Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ. Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses. It's more of a conceptual change. I prefer to only have changes made to the game that improve the game design. I think requiring the Infestation Pit is an artifact of the requiring a Queen's Nest in the original Starcraft, but I don't think it's very clean in terms of design. If there are balance issues with reaching Hive more quickly with regards to Vipers it's always possible to make Vipers require an Infestation Pit. I think there are benefits to having more parity between the races in terms of when you can start your T3 upgrades.
Much easier way to fix that would be to allow Zerg to research T3 upgrades on Lair tech (and perhaps make them take a bit longer to compensate).
But giving them the Hive units earlier and from any tech is dangerous for PvZ.
|
On October 15 2014 23:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On October 15 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push. As a Protoss player: Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ. Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses. It's more of a conceptual change. I prefer to only have changes made to the game that improve the game design. I think requiring the Infestation Pit is an artifact of the requiring a Queen's Nest in the original Starcraft, but I don't think it's very clean in terms of design. If there are balance issues with reaching Hive more quickly with regards to Vipers it's always possible to make Vipers require an Infestation Pit. I think there are benefits to having more parity between the races in terms of when you can start your T3 upgrades. Much easier way to fix that would be to allow Zerg to research T3 upgrades on Lair tech (and perhaps make them take a bit longer to compensate). But giving them the Hive units earlier and from any tech is dangerous for PvZ.
Maybe I'm compulsive about these things, but you can not have Lair unlock T3 upgrades. That's clearly the purpose of Hive, that's what makes sense. Imo, Hive unlocking a unit doesn't make sense because no other zerg unit is really like that so I wouldn't mind if Vipers required an Infestation Pit.
|
On October 15 2014 23:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 23:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On October 15 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push. As a Protoss player: Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ. Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses. It's more of a conceptual change. I prefer to only have changes made to the game that improve the game design. I think requiring the Infestation Pit is an artifact of the requiring a Queen's Nest in the original Starcraft, but I don't think it's very clean in terms of design. If there are balance issues with reaching Hive more quickly with regards to Vipers it's always possible to make Vipers require an Infestation Pit. I think there are benefits to having more parity between the races in terms of when you can start your T3 upgrades. Much easier way to fix that would be to allow Zerg to research T3 upgrades on Lair tech (and perhaps make them take a bit longer to compensate). But giving them the Hive units earlier and from any tech is dangerous for PvZ. Maybe I'm compulsive about these things, but you can not have Lair unlock T3 upgrades. That's clearly the purpose of Hive, that's what makes sense. Imo, Hive unlocking a unit doesn't make sense because no other zerg unit is really like that so I wouldn't mind if Vipers required an Infestation Pit.
But that makes Vipers come way too early o_O.
I understand how that can help with game design, but blzz cannot break the game in the process of improving the design.
Again, if LotV brings some changes, then things like that might be good for zerg...
|
On October 15 2014 23:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 23:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On October 15 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 19:14 Grumbels wrote:Maybe Blizzard should do this: Hive: Requirements: - Lair
- Infestation Pit or Spire or Hydralisk Den
It makes zerg tech more readable and the transition to hive more reasonable. After all, why should you be discriminated against for choosing hydralisks or mutalisks as your T2 tech option? This way you'll know that zerg can transition to T3 at any time without being caught off-guard by a hidden infestation pit. And now you can more easily keep up with upgrades while defending with mutalisks against a parade push. As a Protoss player: Absolutely not. No way in hell is that fair. Not only does it make Vipers much more easily accessible from Hydras (and reminder, Hydra/Viper allin IS a thing) but also it generally makes it much harder to read what the Zerg is going for which is one of the most important things in PvZ. Less relevant, but it also makes Ultras more accessible from Mutas, two units that require vastly different responses. It's more of a conceptual change. I prefer to only have changes made to the game that improve the game design. I think requiring the Infestation Pit is an artifact of the requiring a Queen's Nest in the original Starcraft, but I don't think it's very clean in terms of design. If there are balance issues with reaching Hive more quickly with regards to Vipers it's always possible to make Vipers require an Infestation Pit. I think there are benefits to having more parity between the races in terms of when you can start your T3 upgrades. Much easier way to fix that would be to allow Zerg to research T3 upgrades on Lair tech (and perhaps make them take a bit longer to compensate). But giving them the Hive units earlier and from any tech is dangerous for PvZ. Maybe I'm compulsive about these things, but you can not have Lair unlock T3 upgrades. That's clearly the purpose of Hive, that's what makes sense. Imo, Hive unlocking a unit doesn't make sense because no other zerg unit is really like that so I wouldn't mind if Vipers required an Infestation Pit.
Well, I don't think catering to your OCD is worth messing up the game balance
In BW Hive unlocked Ultras, Guardians, Devourers, and Defilers.
If you need a reason to justify it you can say that only the Hive can produce larva worthy enough to morph into such awesome Zerg species.
|
On October 15 2014 23:17 Grumbels wrote:
Maybe I'm compulsive about these things, but you can not have Lair unlock T3 upgrades.
Unless you consider the armory and the twilight council to be T3 buildings, this would actually be pretty coherent with how this works for everyone else.
Well maybe not Lair by itself, but Lair + Infestation Pit would be where the equivalence lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
